Cited by 30Health Services Management and PolicyHealthcare Systems and PracticesHealthcare Systems and Reforms

How the design and implementation of centralized waiting lists influence their use and effect on access to healthcare - A realist review

Open access
Breton, Mylaine, Smithman, Mélanie Ann, Sasseville, Martin, Kreindler, Sara A., Sutherland, Jason M., Beauséjour, Marie, Green, Michael, Marshall, Emily Gard +6 more·2020·Health Policy

Abstract

CONTEXT: Many health systems have centralized waiting lists (CWLs), but there is limited evidence on CWL effectiveness and how to design and implement them. AIM: To understand how CWLs' design and implementation influence their use and effect on access to healthcare. METHODS: We conducted a realist review (n = 21 articles), extracting context-intervention-mechanism-outcome configurations to identify demi-regularities (i.e., recurring patterns of how CWLs work). RESULTS: In implementing non-mandatory CWLs, acceptability to providers influences their uptake of the CWL. CWL eligibility criteria that are unclear or conflict with providers' role or judgement may result in inequities in patient registration. In CWLs that prioritize patients, providers must perceive the criteria as clear and appropriate to assess patients' level of need; otherwise, prioritization may be inconsistent. During patients' assignment to service providers, providers may select less-complex patients to obtain CWLs rewards or avoid penalties; or may select patients for other policies with stronger incentives, disregarding the established patient order and leading to inequities and limited effectiveness. CONCLUSION: These findings highlight the need to consider provider behaviours in the four sequential CWL design components: CWL implementation, patient registration, patient prioritization and patient assignment to providers. Otherwise, CWLs may result in limited effects on access or lead to inequities in access to services.

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 · 10.1016/j.healthpol.2020.05.023

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 51 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Breton, M., Smithman, M. A., Sasseville, M., Kreindler, S. A., Sutherland, J. M., Beauséjour, M., Green, M., Marshall, E. G., Jbilou, J., Shaw, J., Brousselle, A., Contandriopoulos, D., Crooks, V. A., & Wong, S. T.
Affiliations
  • Université de Sherbrooke (CA)
  • University of Manitoba (CA)
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
  • Queen's University (CA)
  • Dalhousie University (CA)
  • Université de Moncton (CA)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • University of Victoria (CA)
  • Simon Fraser University (CA)
Corresponding author
Breton, Mylaine
Venue
Health Policy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-08
Volume
124
Issue
8
Pages
787-795
ISSN
0168-8510 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3033482026
Cited by
30
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 4
FWCI
0.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Health Policy (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • UVic’s Research and Learning Repository (University of Victoria) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Services Management and Policy
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Healthcare Systems and Practices
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Finance › Healthcare Systems and Reforms
Keywords
health care access, provider behavior, patient prioritization, patient registration, health equity, health system incentives, eligibility criteria
MeSH terms
Delivery of Health Care, Health Facilities, Humans, Motivation, Waiting Lists

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