Factors associated with patients' experience of accessibility to general practice: results from a national survey in Norway.
Access to health care
Accessibility of healthcare services
Continuity
General practitioner
Patient experience
Patient-reported experience measures
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 Aug 2024
30 Aug 2024
Historique:
received:
02
11
2023
accepted:
20
08
2024
medline:
31
8
2024
pubmed:
31
8
2024
entrez:
30
8
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
This study aimed to explore the influence of patient-, general practitioners (GP)-, and GP practice-level predictor variables on patient-experienced accessibility to GPs and GP practices. Additionally, we aimed to enhance our understanding of patient-experienced accessibility by analysing the free-text comments from patients who reported lowest accessibility scores to GPs and GP practices. We performed a secondary analysis of data from a 2021-2022 national Norwegian survey on patient experiences with their GP and GP practice. We identified seven accessibility-related items including experience and acceptance of regular waiting time and for urgent appointments, time spent with the GP, waiting time in the wating-room, and getting in touch with the GP practice by telephone. A composite accessibility score was computed. Predictor variables consisted of patient's self-reported characteristics, as well as background data about the GP and GP practice from National GP registry. The analysis included multiple linear regression of the composite accessibility score and seven accessibility items. Finally, a qualitative analysis was conducted of free-text survey comments among patients that had a score of 0 (unfavourable) on all the seven accessibility items. The key factor for patient-experienced accessibility to general practice was seeing their own GP, showing a statistically significant positive correlation (p<0.001) across all seven accessibility items and the composite accessibility score in regression analyses. Other associations with positive experience included better self-reported health, and at the GP-level, a specialization in general medicine. Conversely, a negative experience was associated with longer time since the last GP consultation, female patients, and a higher number of GPs at the practice. Qualitative data confirmed accessibility challenges, detailing quantitative scores and highlighted that low accessibility scores were related to difficulties in seeing one's own GP. This study highlights the importance of continuity between patient and their GP in improving patients' experiences of accessibility to general practice. Several GP and GP practice-level factors were related to patient-reported accessibility. These results can be used to inform initiatives aimed at improving accessibility to general practice.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
This study aimed to explore the influence of patient-, general practitioners (GP)-, and GP practice-level predictor variables on patient-experienced accessibility to GPs and GP practices. Additionally, we aimed to enhance our understanding of patient-experienced accessibility by analysing the free-text comments from patients who reported lowest accessibility scores to GPs and GP practices.
METHODS
METHODS
We performed a secondary analysis of data from a 2021-2022 national Norwegian survey on patient experiences with their GP and GP practice. We identified seven accessibility-related items including experience and acceptance of regular waiting time and for urgent appointments, time spent with the GP, waiting time in the wating-room, and getting in touch with the GP practice by telephone. A composite accessibility score was computed. Predictor variables consisted of patient's self-reported characteristics, as well as background data about the GP and GP practice from National GP registry. The analysis included multiple linear regression of the composite accessibility score and seven accessibility items. Finally, a qualitative analysis was conducted of free-text survey comments among patients that had a score of 0 (unfavourable) on all the seven accessibility items.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The key factor for patient-experienced accessibility to general practice was seeing their own GP, showing a statistically significant positive correlation (p<0.001) across all seven accessibility items and the composite accessibility score in regression analyses. Other associations with positive experience included better self-reported health, and at the GP-level, a specialization in general medicine. Conversely, a negative experience was associated with longer time since the last GP consultation, female patients, and a higher number of GPs at the practice. Qualitative data confirmed accessibility challenges, detailing quantitative scores and highlighted that low accessibility scores were related to difficulties in seeing one's own GP.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This study highlights the importance of continuity between patient and their GP in improving patients' experiences of accessibility to general practice. Several GP and GP practice-level factors were related to patient-reported accessibility. These results can be used to inform initiatives aimed at improving accessibility to general practice.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39215300
doi: 10.1186/s12913-024-11460-8
pii: 10.1186/s12913-024-11460-8
pmc: PMC11365193
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1008Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
BMC Fam Pract. 2006 Feb 24;7:11
pubmed: 16504130
Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 1998 Jan 30;118(3):386-91
pubmed: 9499727
Scand J Prim Health Care. 2021 Sep;39(3):296-304
pubmed: 34041993
Int J Equity Health. 2018 Feb 20;17(1):28
pubmed: 29458379
BMJ. 1992 May 16;304(6837):1287-90
pubmed: 1606434
Health Rep. 2007 Feb;18(1):23-35
pubmed: 17441441
BMJ Qual Saf. 2012 Jan;21(1):21-9
pubmed: 21900695
Eval Health Prof. 2008 Mar;31(1):65-80
pubmed: 18174607
Fam Pract. 2009 Oct;26(5):384-90
pubmed: 19584122
BMJ Open. 2017 Oct 02;7(9):e016644
pubmed: 28971964
Br J Gen Pract. 2006 Oct;56(531):743-8
pubmed: 17007703
J Womens Health Gend Based Med. 2000 Jul-Aug;9(6):657-65
pubmed: 10957754
BMC Fam Pract. 2018 Dec 3;19(1):188
pubmed: 30509205
BMJ. 2005 Mar 19;330(7492):657-61
pubmed: 15775000
BMJ Open. 2019 Mar 23;9(3):e023578
pubmed: 30904840
BMJ Open. 2016 Jun 28;6(6):e011938
pubmed: 27354083
BMC Fam Pract. 2016 Mar 31;17:38
pubmed: 27036116
Soc Sci Med. 2005 Jul;61(1):97-109
pubmed: 15847965
BMC Fam Pract. 2010 Aug 28;11:61
pubmed: 20799981
BMJ. 2017 Feb 1;356:j84
pubmed: 28148478
BMJ. 2003 Feb 1;326(7383):258
pubmed: 12560279
BMC Health Serv Res. 2017 Apr 5;17(1):255
pubmed: 28381224
Health Serv Res. 2002 Jun;37(3):529-50
pubmed: 12132594
Value Health. 2021 Nov;24(11):1660-1666
pubmed: 34711367
Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2006 May 25;126(11):1481-3
pubmed: 16732343
Med Care. 1981 Feb;19(2):127-40
pubmed: 7206846
Br J Gen Pract. 2020 Aug 27;70(698):e600-e611
pubmed: 32784220
CMAJ Open. 2020 Nov 16;8(4):E722-E730
pubmed: 33199505
BMC Health Serv Res. 2020 Dec 1;20(1):1106
pubmed: 33256725
Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health. 2011 May 21;5:18
pubmed: 21600010
Am J Public Health. 2001 Aug;91(8):1246-50
pubmed: 11499112
J Gen Intern Med. 2005 Mar;20(3):226-33
pubmed: 15836525
BMJ. 2002 Aug 31;325(7362):472
pubmed: 12202329
Swiss Med Wkly. 2018 Apr 03;148:w14601
pubmed: 29611865
Int J Equity Health. 2013 Mar 11;12:18
pubmed: 23496984
Int J Equity Health. 2008 Feb 27;7:7
pubmed: 18304309
Br J Gen Pract. 2015 May;65(634):e312-8
pubmed: 25918336
Can Fam Physician. 2014 Apr;60(4):e230-6
pubmed: 24733343
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2008;1136:161-71
pubmed: 17954679
Can Fam Physician. 2018 Mar;64(3):212-220
pubmed: 29540392
BMC Res Notes. 2018 Apr 3;11(1):220
pubmed: 29615135
PLoS One. 2022 Dec 21;17(12):e0270775
pubmed: 36542601
J Sch Psychol. 2010 Feb;48(1):85-112
pubmed: 20006989