CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,083Primary Care and Health OutcomesPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareHealthcare Systems and Technology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 94 of the 98 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

International variations in primary care physician consultation time: a systematic review of 67 countries

Open access
Irving, Greg, Neves, Ana Luisa, Dambha-Miller, Hajira, Oishi, Ai, Tagashira, Hiroko, Verho, Anistasiya, Holden, John·2017·BMJ Open
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017902PMC PMC5695512
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective: To describe the average primary care physician consultation length in economically developed and low-income/middle-income countries, and to examine the relationship between consultation length and organisational-level economic, and health outcomes. Design and outcome measures: This is a systematic review of published and grey literature in English, Chinese, Japanese, Spanish, Portuguese and Russian languages from 1946 to 2016, for articles reporting on primary care physician consultation lengths. Data were extracted and analysed for quality, and linear regression models were constructed to examine the relationship between consultation length and health service outcomes. Results: One hundred and seventy nine studies were identified from 111 publications covering 28 570 712 consultations in 67 countries. Average consultation length differed across the world, ranging from 48 s in Bangladesh to 22.5 min in Sweden. We found that 18 countries representing about 50% of the global population spend 5 min or less with their primary care physicians. We also found significant associations between consultation length and healthcare spending per capita, admissions to hospital with ambulatory sensitive conditions such as diabetes, primary care physician density, physician efficiency and physician satisfaction. Conclusion: There are international variations in consultation length, and it is concerning that a large proportion of the global population have only a few minutes with their primary care physicians. Such a short consultation length is likely to adversely affect patient healthcare and physician workload and stress.

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 · 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017902

Cites

94 of 94 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 PRISMA flow diagram.
Figure 1 PRISMA flow diagram.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Average consultation length in each country based on most recent data.
Figure 2 Average consultation length in each country based on most recent data.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Consultation length over time in Australia, the USA and the UK.
Figure 3 Consultation length over time in Australia, the USA and the UK.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Consultation length versus per capita health spending ($).
Figure 4 Consultation length versus per capita health spending ($).CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 5 Average consultation length versus primary care physician density per 1000 population.
Figure 5 Average consultation length versus primary care physician density per 1000 population.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central

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

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?

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

Cites

Show all 98 references

Research works printed but not linked: 15

  1. 10.1377/hlthaff.2015.1018 · DOI
  2. Health Information Directorate. Health Statistics 2007. Bahrain: Arabian Printing Press, 2007.
  3. Srikanth B . A prospective study on evaluation of use of drugs at prescriber, dispenser and patients level based on ‘who’ core drug. Editor board. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Akshaya_Bhagavathula/publication/254559382_A_PROSPECTIVE_STUDY_ON_EVALUATION_OF_USE_OF_DRUGS_AT_PRESCRIBER_DISPENSER_AND_PATIENTS_LEVEL_BASED_ON_WHO_CORE_DRUG_USE_INDICATORS_IN_ETHIOPIA/links/0046351fcf7ade2310000000.p
  4. Mochizuki A . Conference proceeding of The 3rd JPCA academic conference:258.
  5. Mjell, 1989, Pasientene tror vi har god tid, Utposten, 4, 182
  6. Bener A , Almarri S , Ali B , et al . Do minutes count for health care? Consultation length in a tertiary care teaching hospital and in general practice. Middle East J Fam 2007 http://www.mejfm.com/journal/Jan2007/MEJFM_Jan2007.pdf#page=3
  7. Tehepold H . Patient consultation in family medicine. Dissertation of the degree of doctor of medical sciences 2006.
  8. Al-Shammari, 1991, Factors associated with consultation Time in Riyad Primary Health Care Centres, Saudi Arabia, Saudi Med J, 12, 371
  9. James, 2003, Factors influencing rational drug use in primary health care centres in Qassim region, Saudi Arabia, Saudi Pharm J, 11, 126
  10. Švab, 2005, Cross sectional study of performance of Slovene General practitioners, Zdr var, 44, 183
  11. P U, I. G, 2001, Estudio sobre el uso de los medicamentos en un área de salud por medio de una encuesta, Ars Pharm, 42, 185
  12. inrud news, 1992, INRUD News, 3, 3
  13. Abdul Rasool BK , Fahmy SA , Abu-Gharbieh EF , et al . Prácticas profesionales y percepción sobre el uso racional de medicamentos según la metodología de OMS en Emiratos Árabes Unidos. Pharm Pract;8:70–6.
  14. Watt, 1952, A year of General Practice, BMJ, 2, 115
  15. Department of Health and Social Security. General medical practitioners’ workload. A report prepared for the doctors’ and dentists’ review body. London 1985.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–400 of 999

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Irving, G., Neves, A. L., Dambha-Miller, H., Oishi, A., Tagashira, H., Verho, A., & Holden, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • Department of Community Medicine, Information and Health Decision Sciences (MEDCIDS), University of Porto, Porto, Portugal
  • Primary Care Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
  • Horton General Hospital (GB)
  • University of Helsinki (FI)
  • Garswood Surgery, Wigan, UK
Corresponding author
Irving, Greg
ORCID
Venue
BMJ Open
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2017-10
Volume
7
Issue
10
Pages
e017902
ISSN
2044-6055 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017902
PMC
PMC5695512
OpenAlex
W2767996342
Cited by
1,083
References
98
Citations by year
2026: 86 · 2025: 115 · 2024: 123 · 2023: 132 · 2022: 103 · 2021: 120 · 2020: 308 · 2019: 70 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 4
FWCI
19.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • BMJ Open (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (acceptedVersion)
  • Edge Hill University Research Information Repository (Edge Hill University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Työväentutkimus Vuosikirja (submittedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
  • World Bank Group
  • Arabian Gulf University
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (CL-2013-14-001, DRF-2015-08-027)
  • Tel Aviv University
  • Fukushima University
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Healthcare Systems and Technology
Keywords
physician-patient interaction, international variation, health care spending, hospitalization, physician density, physician efficiency, physician satisfaction, low-income countries, physician workload
MeSH terms
Appointments and Schedules, Family Practice, Humans, Office Visits, Physician-Patient Relations, Referral and Consultation, Time Factors, Patient Satisfaction, Physicians, Primary Care

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