BACKGROUND: Observational studies have shown differences in process and outcome between the consultations of primary care physicians whose average consultation lengths differ. These differences may be due to self selection. This is the first update of the original review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions to alter the length of primary care physicians' consultations. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases until 4 January 2016: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials and non-randomised controlled trials of interventions to alter the length of primary care physicians' consultations. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies using agreed criteria and resolved disagreements by discussion. We attempted to contact authors of primary studies with missing data. Given the heterogeneity of studies, we did not conduct a meta-analysis. We assessed the certainty of the evidence for the most important outcomes using the GRADE approach and have presented the results in a narrative summary. MAIN RESULTS: Five studies met the inclusion criteria. All were conducted in the UK, and tested short-term changes in the consultation time allocated to each patient. Overall, our confidence in the results was very low; most studies had a high risk of bias, particularly due to non-random allocation of participants and the absence of data on participants' characteristics and small sample sizes. We are uncertain whether altering appointment length increases primary care consultation length, number of referrals and investigations, prescriptions, or patient satisfaction based on very low-certainty evidence. None of the studies reported on the effects of altering the length of consultation on resources used. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We did not find sufficient evidence to support or refute a policy of altering the lengths of primary care physicians' consultations. It is possible that these findings may change if high-quality trials are reported in the future. Further trials are needed that focus on health outcomes and cost-effectiveness.
BACKGROUND: Observational studies have shown differences in process and outcome between the consultations of primary care physicians whose average consultation lengths differ. These differences may be due to self selection. This is the first update of the original review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions to alter the length of primary care physicians' consultations. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases until 4 January 2016: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials and non-randomised controlled trials of interventions to alter the length of primary care physicians' consultations. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies using agreed criteria and resolved disagreements by discussion. We attempted to contact authors of primary studies with missing data. Given the heterogeneity of studies, we did not conduct a meta-analysis. We assessed the certainty of the evidence for the most important outcomes using the GRADE approach and have presented the results in a narrative summary. MAIN RESULTS: Five studies met the inclusion criteria. All were conducted in the UK, and tested short-term changes in the consultation time allocated to each patient. Overall, our confidence in the results was very low; most studies had a high risk of bias, particularly due to non-random allocation of participants and the absence of data on participants' characteristics and small sample sizes. We are uncertain whether altering appointment length increases primary care consultation length, number of referrals and investigations, prescriptions, or patient satisfaction based on very low-certainty evidence. None of the studies reported on the effects of altering the length of consultation on resources used. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We did not find sufficient evidence to support or refute a policy of altering the lengths of primary care physicians' consultations. It is possible that these findings may change if high-quality trials are reported in the future. Further trials are needed that focus on health outcomes and cost-effectiveness.
Authors: Gordon H Guyatt; Andrew D Oxman; Gunn E Vist; Regina Kunz; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Pablo Alonso-Coello; Holger J Schünemann Journal: BMJ Date: 2008-04-26
Authors: Adrian Edwards; Glyn Elwyn; Kerry Hood; Michael Robling; Christine Atwell; Margaret Holmes-Rovner; Paul Kinnersley; Helen Houston; Ian Russell Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2003-07
Authors: F D Richard Hobbs; Clare Bankhead; Toqir Mukhtar; Sarah Stevens; Rafael Perera-Salazar; Tim Holt; Chris Salisbury Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-04-05 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Josefien Buddeke; Michiel L Bots; Ineke van Dis; Frank Lj Visseren; Monika Hollander; François G Schellevis; Ilonca Vaartjes Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2019-05-07 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Saskia E van Grondelle; Sytske van Bruggen; Judith Meijer; Erik van Duin; Michiel L Bots; Guy Rutten; Hedwig M M Vos; Mattijs E Numans; Rimke C Vos Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-07-08 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Lorcan Clarke; Michael Anderson; Rob Anderson; Morten Bonde Klausen; Rebecca Forman; Jenna Kerns; Adrian Rabe; Søren Rud Kristensen; Pavlos Theodorakis; Jose Valderas; Hans Kluge; Elias Mossialos Journal: Milbank Q Date: 2021-09-02 Impact factor: 4.911
Authors: Natasha Elmore; Jenni Burt; Gary Abel; Frances A Maratos; Jane Montague; John Campbell; Martin Roland Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2016-10-24 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Axel Maurice-Szamburski; Pierre Michel; Anderson Loundou; Pascal Auquier Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2017-02-14 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Sarah Stevens; Clare Bankhead; Toqir Mukhtar; Rafael Perera-Salazar; Tim A Holt; Chris Salisbury; F D Richard Hobbs Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-11-16 Impact factor: 2.692