Cited by 220Healthcare Systems and PracticesEmergency and Acute Care StudiesHealth Services Management and Policy

Waiting Time as an Indicator for Health Services Under Strain: A Narrative Review

Open access
McIntyre, Daniel, Chow, Clara K.·2020·INQUIRY: The Journal of Health Care Organization, Provision, and Financing

Abstract

As pressure increases on public health systems globally, a potential consequence is that this is transferred to patients in the form of longer waiting times to receive care. In this review, we overview what waiting for health care encompasses, its measurement, and the data available in terms of trends and comparability. We also discuss whether waiting time is equally distributed according to socioeconomic status. Finally, we discuss the policy implications and potential approaches to addressing the burden of waiting time. Waiting time for elective surgery and emergency department care is the best described type of waiting time, and it either increases or remains unchanged across multiple developed countries. There are many challenges in drawing direct comparisons internationally, as definitions for these types of waiting times vary. There are less data on waiting time from other settings, but existing data suggest waiting time presents a significant barrier to health care access for a range of health services. There is also evidence that waiting time is unequally distributed to those of lower socioeconomic status, although this may be improving in some countries. Further work to better clarify definitions, identify driving factors, and understand hidden waiting times and identify opportunities for reducing waiting time or better using waiting time could improve health outcomes of our health 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 · 10.1177/0046958020910305

Cites

72 of 72 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?

  • Interactive healthcare simulations can inform future healthcare robots and ease the global healthcare burden.

    “Furthermore, these simulations could inform future healthcare robots (Yuan et al. 2023) and ease the global healthcare burden (McIntyre and Chow 2020), (i.e., 40% of the global population (WHO 2018).”

    From Human-Clinical AI Agent Collaboration (2025) · cites this paper as McIntyre and Chow 2020

    The Discussion and Policy Implications section describes waiting for care as a substantial burden that may grow globally and calls for innovation to reduce it. The Conclusions likewise propose innovations in care delivery, but the paper does not address interactive simulations or show that they could ease the broader global healthcare burden. The claim about robots is attached to a different citation. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    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

1 of the 73 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [3]Victorian Agency for Health Information. Statewide—Median Wait Time for Urgent Specialist Clinic Appointment—All Specialties—Quarterly Data. Melbourne, Australia: Victorian Agency for Health Information; 2019.
  2. [13]Anandaciva S What Does the NHS England Review of Waiting Times Mean for Accident and Emergency Departments? The Kings Fund https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/nhs-england-review-waiting-times-accident-emergency. Published 2019. Accessed June 26, 2019.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McIntyre, D., & Chow, C. K.
Affiliations
The University of Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
McIntyre, Daniel
Venue
INQUIRY: The Journal of Health Care Organization, Provision, and Financing
Published
2020-01
Volume
57
Pages
46958020910305-46958020910305
ISSN
  • 0046-9580 (ISSN-L)
  • 1945-7243
OpenAlex
W3021632058
Cited by
219
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 32 · 2025: 66 · 2024: 48 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 1
FWCI
3.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • INQUIRY The Journal of Health Care Organization Provision and Financing (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • National Health and Medical Research Council (APP1105447)
  • National Heart Foundation of Australia (100808)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Healthcare Systems and Practices
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Emergency and Acute Care Studies
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Services Management and Policy
Keywords
waiting time, health care access, healthcare system strain, elective surgery waiting lists, emergency department waiting times, socioeconomic inequalities in health care, international comparability, health policy
MeSH terms
Australia, Emergency Service, Hospital, England, Europe, Health Services Accessibility, Humans, Socioeconomic Factors, Waiting Lists, Global Health, Elective Surgical Procedures, Healthcare Disparities

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