ArticleBMC health services research2026
Switching for the better? understanding how contextual conditions influence patients' choice of primary care provider.
Article in BMC health services research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundConsidering current expectations that patients will stimulate competition based on quality among healthcare providers through informed choices, this study aims to advance understanding of patients' limited engagement in choosing a primary care provider.
methodsThe study focuses on how contextual conditions-such as institutional and social settings-influence decision-making. Conducted in a Swedish primary care context, the study employed a qualitative approach, using thematic analysis of interviews with 18 respondents who had experience seeking primary care services. To further explore contextual influences, respondents were asked to reflect on and contrast their decisions regarding primary care providers with those related to other services, such as nursing homes or schools.
resultsRespondents were generally less engaged in seeking information about primary care providers compared to other types of service choices. Five themes of contextual conditions were found to influence engagement in the informed choice process: (1) the perceived necessity to choose, (2) the visibility of differences between providers, (3) the expectation of equal service quality, (4) the presence of personal relationships connected to providers, and (5) the continuity of the care relationship.
conclusionsFindings suggest that efforts to promote informed patient choice in primary care need to extend beyond the provision of information to address the contextual conditions that shape engagement. Policymakers aiming to increase competition and patient agency in healthcare should make provider differences more visible and clarify the purpose and impact of choice. CLINICAL
trial registrationNot relevant.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.