MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Delays in Medical Care: A Systematic Review of Determinants, Consequences and Interventions

2025· review· en· W4411533850 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
N Daniel, MOSSUS Tatiana, M. CHRISTIAN, ONGTOKONO Ingrid Lovana, NSEME ETOUCKEY Eric

Bibliographic record

VenueSAS Journal of Medicine · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObservational studyPsychological interventionMedicineCochrane LibrarySystematic reviewMEDLINEHealth careMeta-analysisIntensive care medicineNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Delays in medical care represent a significant public health challenge with substantial impacts on morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs. These delays can occur at various stages of the care pathway, from symptom recognition by patients to treatment initiation. This systematic review aims to synthesize current evidence on the determinants, consequences, and interventions to reduce these delays through rigorous analysis of published studies. Materials and methods: A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for studies published between January 2000 and December 2023. Search strategies combined MeSH terms and keywords: "delays in care," "access to care," "diagnosis," "treatment," and "interventions." Included studies were observational or interventional studies evaluating delayed care in adult patients with quantitative data on delays or consequences. Case studies, literature reviews, and in vitro studies were excluded. Methodological quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for interventional studies. Data extracted included study characteristics, delay determinants, consequences, and interventions. Meta-analyses were performed where appropriate using random-effects models. Results: Multiple factors influence delays in care. For instance, patients in rural areas experienced average delays 2.5 days longer for cardiac symptom consultation compared to urban residents. Patients with lower education levels were 1.8 times more likely to delay consultation for suspected cancer. Regarding consequences, meta-analysis revealed that each day of delay in stroke treatment increased death or disability risk by 5%. Interventions showed promise: patient education programs reduced cardiac symptom consultation delays by 30%, while telemedicine systems decreased specialist referral time for suspected cancer by 20%. Conclusion: Delayed medical care repr

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.059
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.059
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.017
Bibliometrics0.0100.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.281
GPT teacher head0.596
Teacher spread0.315 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAS Journal of MedicineSame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207