Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39875177›Full record

ArticleFamily medicine and community health2025

Impact of changes in primary care attachment: a scoping review.

Leanda Godfrey, Antoine St-Amant, Kamila Premji, Jonathan Fitzsimon

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Family medicine and community health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Leanda GodfreyInstitut du Savoir Montfort, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0009-0002-6582-3780
Antoine St-AmantInstitut du Savoir Montfort, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0009-0003-1076-0855
Kamila PremjiUniversity of Ottawa Faculty of Medicine, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-7992-3323
Jonathan FitzsimonInstitut du Savoir Montfort, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada jfitzsi2@uottawa.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-0314-1664

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesPrimary care attachment represents an inclusive, equitable and cost-effective way of enhancing health outcomes globally. However, the growing shortage of family physicians threatens to disrupt patient-provider relationships. Understanding the consequences of these disruptions is essential for guiding future research and policy. The objectives of this study were to map the existing evidence on the impacts of changes in primary care attachment, identify research gaps and recommend areas for further investigation.

designScoping review following Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidelines and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews checklist. Two researchers conducted all stages of screening, and study quality was assessed using JBI critical appraisal tools. Key themes included causes of attachment change, direction of change and outcomes aligned with the quintuple aim framework. Both qualitative and quantitative findings were synthesised narratively. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Peer-reviewed, English-language articles published between 1999 and 2024 on primary care attachment changes. INFORMATION SOURCES: PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science.

resultsOf 2045 studies screened, 31 met inclusion criteria, with 60% published after 2020. Most studies originated from high-income countries, particularly the USA (35%) and Canada (29%). Attachment losses and transfers were the most frequently studied, while attachment and unattachment durations were less explored. These changes in attachment were consistently shown to impact patients, providers, clinics and the healthcare system, influencing all aims of the quintuple aim framework, including clinical outcomes, healthcare utilisation, costs, equity and patient experience. Commonly assessed outcomes included clinical impact (68%), health equity (48%), patient experience (32%) and costs (23%), with no study assessing provider experience.

conclusionsThis scoping review maps the published literature on changes in primary care attachment and introduces clarifying terminology. Key research gaps include geographical diversity (lack of studies from low- and middle-income countries), attachment gain (limited research on strategies to reconnect unattached patients), attachment duration (insufficient evidence on long-term health outcomes), economic implications (underexplored costs of physician turnover and disruption), provider experiences (lack of studies on how changes in primary care attachment impact provider burnout, job satisfaction and workload) and patient health outcomes (focus on healthcare utilisation rather than direct health outcomes). These findings underscore the need for further research and offer valuable insights for future studies and policy development.

Indexed as

Physician-Patient RelationsPrimary Health CareHumansDelivery of Health Care, IntegratedPhysician-Patient RelationsPhysicians, Primary CarePrimary Health Care

Identifiers

PMID39875177
PMCPMC11781123

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.