OBJECTIVE: To examine access to primary care in new and traditional models using 2 dimensions of the concept of patient-centred access. DESIGN: An international survey examining the quality and costs of primary health care (the QUALICOPC study) was conducted in 2013 in Canada. This study adopted a descriptive cross-sectional survey method using data from practices across Canada. Each participating practice filled out the Family Physician Survey and the Practice Survey, and patients in each participating practice were asked to complete the Patient Experiences Survey. SETTING: All 10 Canadian provinces. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 759 practices and 7172 patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Independent t tests were conducted to examine differences between new and traditional models of care in terms of availability and accommodation, and affordability of care. RESULTS: Of the 759 practices, 407 were identified as having new models of care and 352 were identified as traditional. New models of care were distinct with respect to payment structure, opening hours, and having an interdisciplinary work force. Most participating practices were from large cities or suburban areas. There were few differences between new and traditional models of care regarding accessibility and accommodation in primary care. Patients under new models of care reported easier access to other physicians in the same practice, while patients from traditional models reported seeing their regular family physicians more frequently. There was no difference between the new and traditional models of care with regard to affordability of primary care. Patients attending clinics with new models of care reported that their physicians were more involved with them as a whole person than patients attending clinics based on traditional models did. CONCLUSION: Primary care access issues do not differ strongly between traditional and new models of care; however, patients in the new models of care believed that their physicians were more involved with them as people.
OBJECTIVE: To examine access to primary care in new and traditional models using 2 dimensions of the concept of patient-centred access. DESIGN: An international survey examining the quality and costs of primary health care (the QUALICOPC study) was conducted in 2013 in Canada. This study adopted a descriptive cross-sectional survey method using data from practices across Canada. Each participating practice filled out the Family Physician Survey and the Practice Survey, and patients in each participating practice were asked to complete the Patient Experiences Survey. SETTING: All 10 Canadian provinces. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 759 practices and 7172 patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Independent t tests were conducted to examine differences between new and traditional models of care in terms of availability and accommodation, and affordability of care. RESULTS: Of the 759 practices, 407 were identified as having new models of care and 352 were identified as traditional. New models of care were distinct with respect to payment structure, opening hours, and having an interdisciplinary work force. Most participating practices were from large cities or suburban areas. There were few differences between new and traditional models of care regarding accessibility and accommodation in primary care. Patients under new models of care reported easier access to other physicians in the same practice, while patients from traditional models reported seeing their regular family physicians more frequently. There was no difference between the new and traditional models of care with regard to affordability of primary care. Patients attending clinics with new models of care reported that their physicians were more involved with them as a whole person than patients attending clinics based on traditional models did. CONCLUSION: Primary care access issues do not differ strongly between traditional and new models of care; however, patients in the new models of care believed that their physicians were more involved with them as people.
Authors: Michael E Green; William Hogg; David Gray; Doug Manuel; Michelle Koller; Sarah Maaten; Yan Zhang; Samuel E D Shortt Journal: Healthc Policy Date: 2009-11
Authors: Imre Rurik; W G Wienke Boerma; László Róbert Kolozsvári; Levente István Lánczi; Lajos Mester; Csaba Móczár; L A Willemijn Schäfer; Péter Schmidt; Péter Torzsa; Mária Végh; P Peter Gronewegen Journal: Orv Hetil Date: 2012-09-02 Impact factor: 0.540
Authors: Sabrina T Wong; Leena W Chau; William Hogg; Gary F Teare; Baukje Miedema; Mylaine Breton; Kris Aubrey-Bassler; Alan Katz; Fred Burge; Antoine Boivin; Tim Cooke; Danièle Francoeur; Walter P Wodchis Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2015-02-18 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Yvonne Anisimowicz; Andrea E Bowes; Ashley E Thompson; Baukje Miedema; William E Hogg; Sabrina T Wong; Alan Katz; Fred Burge; Kris Aubrey-Bassler; Gregory S Yelland; Walter P Wodchis Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2017-05 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: Allanah Li; Shawna Cronin; Yu Qing Bai; Kevin Walker; Mehdi Ammi; William Hogg; Sabrina T Wong; Walter P Wodchis Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2018-05-30 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Mylaine Breton; Mélanie Ann Smithman; Nassera Touati; Antoine Boivin; Christine Loignon; Carl-Ardy Dubois; Kareen Nour; Catherine Lamoureux-Lamarche; Astrid Brousselle Journal: J Prim Care Community Health Date: 2018 Jan-Dec
Authors: Anna Nánási; Tímea Ungvári; László R Kolozsvári; Szilvia Harsányi; Zoltán Jancsó; Levente I Lánczi; Lajos Mester; Csaba Móczár; Csilla Semanova; Péter Schmidt; Judit Szidor; Péter Torzsa; Mária Végh; Imre Rurik Journal: Prim Health Care Res Dev Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 1.458
Authors: Bernadette Ward; Riki Lane; Julie McDonald; Gawaine Powell-Davies; Jeff Fuller; Sarah Dennis; Rachael Kearns; Grant Russell Journal: Int J Equity Health Date: 2018-06-15