Cited by 9Health Policy Implementation SciencePrimary Care and Health OutcomesHealth Services Management and Policy

Explaining variation of implementation outcomes of centralized waiting lists for unattached patients: A comparative multiple case study in Quebec

Open access
Malham, Sabina Abou, Smithman, Mélanie-Ann, Touati, Nassera, Brousselle, Astrid, Loignon, Christine, Dubois, Carl-Ardy, Nour, Kareen, Boivin, Antoine +1 more·2019·Journal of Health Organization and Management

Abstract

Purpose: Centralized waiting lists (CWLs) for patient attachment to a primary care provider have been implemented across Canada, including Quebec. Little is known about the implementation of CWLs and the factors that influence implementation outcomes of such primary care innovations. The purpose of this paper is to explain variations in the outcomes of implementation by analyzing the characteristics of CWLs and contextual factors that influence their implementation. Design/methodology/approach: A multiple qualitative case study was conducted. Four contrasting CWLs were purposefully selected: two relatively high-performing and two relatively low-performing cases with regard to process indicators. Data collected between 2015 and 2016 drew on three sources: 26 semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders, 22 documents and field notes. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used to identify, through a cross-case comparison of ratings, constructs that distinguish high from low-performing cases. Findings: Five constructs distinguished high from low-performing cases: three related to the inner setting: network and communications; leadership engagement; available resources; one from innovation characteristics: adaptability with regard to registration, evaluation of priority and attachment to a family physician; and, one associated with process domain: engaging. Other constructs exerted influence on implementation (e.g. outer setting, individual characteristics), but did not distinguish high and low-performing cases. Originality/value: This is the first in-depth analysis of CWL implementation. Results suggest important factors that might be useful in efforts to continuously improve implementation performance of CWLs and similar innovations.

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 · 10.1108/jhom-10-2018-0303

Cites

43 of 43 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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Prior research has found evidence that family physicians "cherry-pick" healthier patients for attachment, avoiding patients with more complex health needs.

    “This is coherent with prior research that has found evidence that family physicians “cherry-pick” healthier patients for attachment, avoiding patients with more complex health needs (e.g. mental health problems, intellectual disability) [44, 46–49].”

    From Improved access to and continuity of primary care after attachment to a family physician: longitudinal cohort study on centralized waiting lists for unattached patients in Quebec, Canada (2022) · cites this paper as [48]

    In Results > Characteristics of the innovation (page unavailable), staff report that some family physicians did not want patients with mental health problems and preferred referrals without those added needs. This supports the claim of selective attachment, but the passage does not address the cited sentence’s example of intellectual disability. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Miles M.B., Huberman A.M. and Saldaña J. (2014), Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
  2. Rogers E.M. (2003), Diffusion of Innovations, Free Press, New York, NY.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Malham, S. A., Smithman, M.-A., Touati, N., Brousselle, A., Loignon, C., Dubois, C.-A., Nour, K., Boivin, A., & Breton, M.
Affiliations
  • Université de Sherbrooke (CA)
  • École Nationale d'Administration Publique (CA)
  • Université de Montréal (CA)
  • Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux de la Montérégie-Centre (CA)
Corresponding author
Breton, Mylaine
Venue
Journal of Health Organization and Management
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2019-08-08
Volume
33
Issue
5
Pages
563-587
ISSN
1477-7266 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2953717254
Cited by
9
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1
FWCI
2.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Health Organization and Management (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UVic’s Research and Learning Repository (University of Victoria) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  • Fonds de Recherche du Québec - Santé (28974)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Services Management and Policy
Keywords
patient attachment, primary care, implementation outcomes, implementation research, Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, inner setting, leadership engagement, Quebec
MeSH terms
Stakeholder Participation, Canada, Family Practice, Health Services Accessibility, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Primary Health Care, Quebec, Waiting Lists, Program Development, Organizational Case Studies, Qualitative Research

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