Table 5 Evidence of effects in Ontario
From: Improving access to primary health care: a cross-case comparison based on an a priori program theory
Box | Impact | Evidence | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
10 | Consumer ability to perceive need | Not measured. | |
11 | Ability to seek | Significant improvement on score on ‘Ability to seek’ (Scale; 1 = Not easy at all to 4 = Very easy) increased from 2.7 to 3.0 p = 0.000. | Patient survey |
12 | Consumer gets to social/ community service appropriate to need | 52% patients had accessed at least one resource. 55% patients had either accessed the resource, had an upcoming appointment with a health or community service, or were on a waiting list. In total, 57 resources were accessed by study participants, with an average of 1.7 per patient. | Patient survey |
14 | Ability to Pay | Patients reported the intervention assisted them to access services they could afford. | Qualitative interview |
22 | GPs/FPs have knowledge and skills | 61% of primary care providers reported that the intervention enabled them to refer more to community resources. | Provider survey |
24 | GP/PC Clinic has policies, processes, procedures enabling/ supporting access | Implemented as part of the study and sustained: Promotional material to help patients be aware of need Referral form embedded in electronic medical record to refer vulnerable patients for navigation. | Observed |
31 | Appropriate referrals | 61% of primary care providers reported that the intervention enabled them to refer more to community resources. | Provider survey |