Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 287

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Resolving the Gatekeeper Conundrum: What Patients Value in Primary Care and Referrals to Specialists

Grumbach, Kevin, Selby, Joe V., Damberg, Cheryl, Bindman, Andrew B., Quesenberry, Jr, Charles, Truman, Alison, Uratsu, Connie·1999·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: Few data are available regarding how patients view the role of primary care physicians as "gatekeepers" in managed care systems. OBJECTIVE: To determine the extent to which patients value the role of their primary care physicians as first-contact care providers and coordinators of referrals, whether patients perceive that their primary care physicians impede access to specialists, and whether problems in gaining access to specialists are associated with a reduction in patients' trust and confidence in their primary care physicians. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Cross-sectional survey mailed in the fall of 1997 to 12707 adult patients who were members of managed care plans and received care from 10 large physician groups in California. The response rate among eligible patients was 71%. A total of 7718 patients (mean age, 66.7 years; 32 % female) were eligible for analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Questionnaire items addressed 3 main topics: (1) patient attitudes toward the first-contact and coordinating role of their primary care physicians, (2) patients' ratings of their primary care physicians (trust and confidence in and satisfaction with), and (3) patient perceptions of barriers to specialty referrals. Referral barriers were analyzed as predictors of patients' ratings of their physicians. RESULTS: Almost all patients valued the role of a primary care physician as a source of first-contact care (94%) and coordinator of referrals (89%). Depending on the specific medical problem, 75% to 91% of patients preferred to seek care initially from their primary care physicians rather than specialists. Twenty-three percent reported that their primary care physicians or medical groups interfered with their ability to see specialists. Patients who had difficulty obtaining referrals were more likely to report low trust (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 2.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.1-3.5), low confidence (OR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.6-2.9), and low satisfaction (OR, 3.3; 95% CI, 2.6-4.2) with their primary care physicians. CONCLUSIONS: Patients value the first-contact and coordinating role of primary care physicians. However, managed care policies that emphasize primary care physicians as gatekeepers impeding access to specialists undermine patients' trust and confidence in their primary care physicians.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.282.3.261

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 287

Metadata

Authors
Grumbach, K., Selby, J. V., Damberg, C., Bindman, A. B., Quesenberry, Jr., Truman, A., & Uratsu, C.
Venue
JAMA
Published
1999-07-21
Volume
282
Issue
3
Pages
261
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2087816928
Cited by
287
References
0
FWCI
50.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Resolving the Gatekeeper Conundrum: What Patients Value in Primary Care and Referrals to Specialists. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.282.3.261
The paper
Grumbach, K., Selby, J. V., Damberg, C., Bindman, A. B., Quesenberry, Jr., Truman, A., & Uratsu, C. (1999). Resolving the Gatekeeper Conundrum: What Patients Value in Primary Care and Referrals to Specialists. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.282.3.261

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.