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

Objective To 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. Methods We 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. Results Non-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). Conclusion Among 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 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 6%
23.2%
2
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.8%
3
BMC Medical Education
20 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
5.0%
4
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.1%
5
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 5%
3.7%
50% of probability mass above
6
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
3.7%
7
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness
16 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.7%
8
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 33%
3.7%
9
BMJ Open Quality
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.8%
10
CMAJ Open
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.4%
11
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
12
Public Health
34 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.7%
13
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
14
Journal of Public Health
23 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.5%
15
PLOS Global Public Health
293 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.5%
16
F1000Research
79 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.4%
17
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.4%
18
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.4%
19
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.3%
20
Archives of Public Health
12 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.1%
21
Preventive Medicine Reports
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.0%
22
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
23
Journal of Global Antimicrobial Resistance
15 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
24
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
61 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
25
Infection
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
26
European Journal of Public Health
20 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
27
Journal of General Internal Medicine
20 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
28
Clinical Microbiology and Infection
60 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
29
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
13 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%
30
BMC Psychiatry
22 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.5%