↓ Skip to main content

Who gets a family physician through centralized waiting lists?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Primary Care, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Who gets a family physician through centralized waiting lists?
Published in
BMC Primary Care, February 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12875-014-0220-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mylaine Breton, Astrid Brousselle, Antoine Boivin, Danièle Roberge, Raynald Pineault, Djamal Berbiche

Abstract

BackgroundNorth American patients are experiencing difficulties in securing affiliations with family physicians. Centralized waiting lists are increasingly being used in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries to improve access. In 2011, the Canadian province of Quebec introduced new financial incentives for family physicians¿ enrolment of orphan patients through centralized waiting lists, the Guichet d¿accès aux clientèles orphelines, with higher payments for vulnerable patients. This study analyzed whether any significant changes were observed in the numbers of patient enrolments with family physicians¿ after the introduction of the new financial incentives. Prior to then, financial incentives had been offered for enrolment of vulnerable patients only and there were no incentives for enrolling non-vulnerable patients. After 2011, financial incentives were also offered for enrolment of non-vulnerable patients, while those for enrolment of vulnerable patients were doubled.MethodsA longitudinal quantitative analysis spanning a five-year period (2008¿2013) was performed using administrative databases covering all patients enrolled with family physicians through centralized waiting lists in the province of Quebec (n¿=¿494,697 patients). Mixed regression models for repeated-measures were used.ResultsThe number of patients enrolled with a family physician through centralized waiting lists more than quadrupled after the changes in financial incentives. Most of this increase involved non-vulnerable patients. After the changes, 70% of patients enrolled with a family physician through centralized waiting lists were non-vulnerable patients, most of whom had been referred to the centralized waiting lists by the physician who enrolled them, without first being registered in those lists or having to wait because of their priority level.ConclusionCentralized waiting lists linked to financial incentives increased the number of family physicians¿ patient enrolments. However, although vulnerable patients were supposed to be given precedence, physicians favoured enrolment of healthier patients over those with greater health needs and higher assessed priority. These results suggest that introducing financial incentives without appropriate regulations may lead to opportunistic use of the incentive system with unintended policy consequences.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 22%
Researcher 8 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Other 3 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 7 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 38%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 11%
Social Sciences 3 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 10 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 October 2016.
All research outputs
#1,497,514
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from BMC Primary Care
#131
of 2,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,376
of 360,639 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Primary Care
#4
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,359 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 360,639 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.