Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41526837›Full record

ArticleBMC primary care2026

Virtual care as deployed to improve access to primary health care in three Canadian provinces: a policy focused qualitative study.

Adam Fleischmann, Ruth Lavergne, Myles Leslie

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC primary care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Adam FleischmannUniversity of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Ruth LavergneDalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada.
Myles LeslieUniversity of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada. myles.leslie@ucalgary.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the uptake of virtual primary care (VPC) in Canada, debates over how it ought to be encouraged or discouraged, governed and paid for have intensified. Within these debates there has been little attention paid to the details of which technologies are being deployed to deliver VPC and how those technologies interact with non-technical factors to ensure efficiency and effectiveness.

methodsThe aims of the study included drawing out pragmatic considerations for policy makers by identifying the various constellations of VPC technology that are being deployed; characterizing how key informants see them working and to what purpose; and describing how those technologies are interacting with non-technical factors to shape success. 29 qualitative interviews were conducted with mid-level VPC experts from the provinces of Alberta, Nova Scotia, and Ontario.

resultsKey informants saw a broad range of VPC technologies as improving access to primary care by increasing efficiency and coordination. They deployed VPC to improve the accessibility, availability, and accommodativeness of care. They described VPC technologies interacting with and relying on: human efforts, funding models, and the institutional contexts for their success.

conclusionsPolicy-makers seeking to optimize VPC will want to consider ways to support not just purchases of technology, but: the human effort required to choose and manage technology; the funding mechanisms that incentivize the efficient use technology; and the institutional contexts and cultures that underpin access improvements through technology.

Indexed as

COVID-19Health Services AccessibilityPrimary Health CareTelemedicineAccess to Primary CareAlbertaCanadaDigital HealthHealth PolicyHumansNova ScotiaOntarioQualitative ResearchSARS-CoV-2AccessAccessibilityAccommodationAvailabilityPrimary carePrimary health careVirtual care

Identifiers

PMID41526837
PMCPMC12888718

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.