This study used a cross-sectional web-based survey to evaluate patient experiences with the online mapping tool DocMapper (in English) and TrouvezUnMedecin (in French) between November 9, 2022, and June 19, 2023. During the study period, all visitors to the website were presented with a welcome message inviting them to complete the survey, as well as additional links to the survey from within the tool (Multimedia Appendix 1). The tool contained two maps: one for family physicians in Ottawa (population: 1,017,449 [4]) and one for family physicians in Renfrew County (population: 107,522 [9]), and these residents were the tool’s intended users.

Our survey was available on the public internet, publicized through institutional social media accounts, and shared through personal and professional research networks, meaning that it was presented to a potentially large international audience. Given that the target audience of the tool comprises Ontario and Quebec residents living near Ottawa and Renfrew County, we excluded any respondents who did not report living in Ontario or Quebec. Self-reported forward sortation areas (first 3 digits of the postal code) were used to filter which respondents were included in the study population.

The study survey (Multimedia Appendix 2) consisted of 2 substantive questions: one to rate users’ overall appreciation of the map using a standard 5-point Likert scale from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied) and one free-text question inviting suggestions for improvements to the map. These were followed by demographic questions, including age group, language preference, postal code (first 3 digits), medication use, enrollment status and visit frequency with a family physician, and the map user’s intended beneficiary. Only the Likert-scale satisfaction question was mandatory, meaning that respondents were not required to answer any other questions to submit their survey responses. The survey was developed using an iterative process whereby question sets were tested internally by the research team and refined accordingly. Study data were collected and managed using the Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) electronic data capture tools hosted at the Institut du Savoir Montfort [10,11]. REDCap is a secure, web-based software platform designed to support data capture for research studies, providing (1) an intuitive interface for validated data capture, (2) audit trails for tracking data manipulation and export procedures, (3) automated export procedures for seamless data downloads to common statistical packages, and (4) procedures for data integration and interoperability with external sources. The survey was pilot-tested by the research team and external colleagues. Because the survey consisted of only 2 questions, validity and reliability were not evaluated.

Data about total website visits to the tool were also collected using Google Analytics during the study period. Google Analytics collects and reports only anonymized, aggregated, and unidentifiable observations about users’ interactions with public websites [12] and has previously been used in studies of online resources for mental health [13], nursing [14], cardiology [15], sexual health [16], and dermatology [17].

This study was approved by Hôpital Montfort Research Ethics Board (application number 22-23-09-033). Participants provided informed consent before completing the survey and responses were anonymous. Participants were not compensated for participating.

Likert-scale responses are reported as summary statistics. We evaluated responses to the question “On a scale of one (1) to five (5), how would you rate your overall appreciation of the map?” by first collapsing responses into three categories: “very satisfied/somewhat satisfied,” “neither satisfied nor dissatisfied,” and “very dissatisfied/somewhat dissatisfied.” We then evaluated responses for the population as a whole and compared responses between demographic groups using the Pearson χ² test with the chisq.test() function in the R Language for Statistical Computing [18].

We analyzed short-answer responses to the question “Please give us any suggestions for improvement that you might have regarding the map” using thematic analysis. The coding scheme was initially developed by one author (CB) inductively from a close reading of the responses, and the final scheme was revised and finalized through discussion and consensus with two other authors (CP and LMB). The three authors (CB, CP, and LMB) coded each response individually and then met to discuss and arrive at a consensus coding for each response. Responses were assigned more than one code if multiple themes were present.

There were a total of 3726 unique “new user” visits to the English and French versions of the online map during the study period. User demographics are presented in Table 1. Approximately 91% of all visits were from users in Ontario or Quebec (ie, in or near the study’s intended population base).

The survey received 103 responses, of which 102 were submitted and marked “complete” in REDCap. Of the 102 complete responses, 92 included a valid postal code in Ontario or Quebec, and one respondent who did not provide a valid postal code self-identified as living in the Ottawa region in their free-text response. These 93 respondents constitute our final sample for a response rate of approximately 2.7% of Ontario- and Quebec-based site visitors. Respondent demographics are shown in Table 2.

Overall, respondents reported that they were satisfied with the tool. Among the 93 respondents, 57 (61%) reported they were “very satisfied” or “somewhat satisfied,” 16 (17%) reported they were “neither satisfied nor dissatisfied,” and 20 (22%) reported they were “very dissatisfied” or “somewhat dissatisfied.” We found no statistically significant differences when comparing responses between groups based on preferred language (P=.24), age group (P=.57), whether they had a family physician (P=.09), and who they were using the map for (P=.66) using the Pearson χ² test.

We found that most users were satisfied with the mapping tool, suggesting that this kind of online, interactive, map-based data source is valuable for many patients. At this formative stage, we believe that these results are sufficient to show that our tool has real value for some patients. Furthermore, many respondents who were not satisfied expressed dissatisfaction that the tool did not contain information about which family physicians were accepting new patients. In fact, our qualitative findings suggest that many patients’ primary interest in the map was to help them find a local language-concordant family physician who was also accepting new patients. This suggests that the map would be more satisfactory to a significant subset of patients if it included this information.

Our findings suggest that there could be significant patient value in reporting which Ontario physicians are accepting new patients. However, at present, there is no centralized source for these data in the region; in other jurisdictions such as Norway, this has become the main means of finding and securing a family physician [19]. There are currently no reporting requirements for family physicians to disclose this information nor is it reported in the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario’s physician information directory or, to our knowledge, by the Ontario Ministry of Health [20]. As such, there is no ready-at-hand data source that could be incorporated into the mapping tool.

Although our focus was on evaluating the mapping tool, our qualitative findings also align with the research literature on the importance of access to language-concordant health care [1-3], further underscoring the need for better access to and information about these services. Some participants also expressed a desire to have more languages featured in the map; however, since the map shows all languages spoken by family physicians within the study region, this limitation reflects the language competencies reported by physicians.

Our quantitative analysis found no statistically significant differences between demographic groups, for which we suggest two potential explanations. First, our study’s relatively small sample size may mean that it was underpowered to detect any significant differences between groups. Second, there was relative homogeneity in users’ overall experiences using the mapping tool.

Future research could explore the topic of which physicians are accepting new patients in several ways. First, additional patient-focused studies could explore patients’ perceptions and needs for this information to validate its general utility. Second, physician-focused studies could explore physician and office staff perspectives on making this information available. Applied research could incorporate both patients’ and physicians’ perspectives to explore ways of collecting and disseminating this information. Finally, more theoretical and policy-oriented research could examine policy options to bridge these identified gaps in the context of Ontario’s health care system.

This study has several limitations. First, although we have taken steps to ensure all respondents were within the intended study population and there was no indication of malicious or false responses, we used an anonymous online survey, which could be subject to manipulation. Second, our sample is limited to those who visited the website and elected to fill out the survey; therefore, our sample may be biased toward users with greater computer literacy and health literacy. Finally, our sample size of 93 represents a response rate of 2.7% of the 3393 website visitors from Ontario and Quebec, meaning that care must be taken in applying our findings to the full population.

We conducted a cross-sectional online survey of people who accessed an online interactive map of family physicians in Ontario. While most patients were satisfied with the online map, a significant minority expressed dissatisfaction that the map did not show which family physicians were accepting new patients. This suggests that there may be public interest in an accessible database of which family physicians in Canada are currently accepting new patients.