Back

Waiting time for scheduled outpatient specialist consultations by access pathway in public hospitals in Ecuador

Armijos Briones, M.; Diaz Cercado, E.; Marcillo-Toala, O.; Ayala Aguirre, P. E.; Benitez Sellan, P. L.; Lanata-Flores, A.; Armijos Bazurto, N.

2026-05-06 health policy
10.64898/2026.05.04.26352408 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectiveTo quantify waiting time in days for scheduled outpatient specialist consultations and to compare waiting time between standardized and non-standardized access pathways in Ecuadorian public hospitals. MethodsWe analyzed hospital-based survey data from Ecuadorian public hospitals, restricted to adults attending a scheduled outpatient specialist consultation (n = 4,436). Emergency care, unscheduled urgent visits, procedures, and follow-up visits were excluded by design. Access pathway was classified from participants self-report as standardized (institutional or system-based) or non-standardized (informal or non-system-based). Waiting time, defined as the number of days between obtaining the appointment and attending the consultation, was compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. Sociodemographic correlates of non-standardized access were examined using adjusted logistic regression, and adjusted median differences were estimated using quantile regression ({tau} = 0.50). Analyses were stratified into direct-access specialties and referral-required specialties. ResultsNon-standardized access was associated with shorter waiting times than standardized access. In adjusted median regression, non-standardized access was associated with a 3.2-day shorter median waiting time (95% CI -4.6 to -1.8). The difference was larger in direct-access specialties (-15.0 days, 95% CI -15.0 to -6.0) than in referral-required specialties (-5.0 days, 95% CI -5.0 to 0.0). ConclusionAmong patients who attended a scheduled outpatient specialist consultation in Ecuadorian public hospitals, non-standardized access was associated with shorter waiting times, particularly in direct-access specialties. These findings suggest that, within routine outpatient care, parallel access pathways may shape timeliness and warrant greater transparency in appointment allocation and referral coordination.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 7%
22.9%
2
BMC Health Services Research
51 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.9%
3
Health Policy
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
13.2%
50% of probability mass above
4
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 2%
8.1%
5
BMC Public Health
158 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.1%
6
Risk Management and Healthcare Policy
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.2%
7
PLOS Global Public Health
344 papers in training set
Top 5%
2.5%
8
BMJ Global Health
113 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.2%
9
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 52%
1.8%
10
BMC Medical Education
21 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.8%
11
BMC Psychiatry
25 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.8%
12
The Lancet Regional Health - Americas
22 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.4%
13
BMJ Public Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.2%
14
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness
16 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.2%
15
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
128 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.1%
16
JAMA Network Open
130 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
17
International Journal of Medical Informatics
26 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
18
Emerging Infectious Diseases
105 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
19
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 55%
0.9%
20
Frontiers in Public Health
148 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.6%
21
Journal of Medical Internet Research
87 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%