Evidence library

Sources, methods, and limitations.

SensaAI cites published research and industry benchmarks, and clearly separates Canadian evidence from international, North American, and vendor-published data.

Last updated: August 5, 2026

Tier 1 — Canadian government

Canadian government data

Canadian government and agency sources. These are the strongest sources used on the site.

26%

Only 26% of Canadian adults reported getting a same- or next-day primary-care appointment in 2023.

Source: CIHI data tables
Year: 2023
Scope: Canadian adults surveyed, Commonwealth Fund international survey.

~22%

In Ontario, roughly 22% of adults reported same- or next-day access in 2023.

Source: CIHI data tables
Year: 2023
Scope: Ontario subset of the same Commonwealth Fund survey.

~62%

About 62% of Ontario adults reported difficulty getting after-hours care without going to an emergency department.

Source: CIHI data tables
Year: 2023
Scope: Ontario adults, same Commonwealth Fund survey.

~4 million

An estimated 4 million Canadian adults were without a primary-care provider in 2023.

Source: CIHI
Year: 2023
Scope: National estimate.

$37.95

OHIP intermediate family-practice assessment: $37.95.

Source: Ontario Schedule of Benefits
Year: 2025
Scope: Ontario fee-for-service reference value; gross clinical payment before overhead, not profit.

$87.35

OHIP general assessment: $87.35.

Source: Ontario Schedule of Benefits
Year: 2025
Scope: Ontario fee-for-service reference value; gross clinical payment before overhead, not profit.

~$51.40

CIHI reports an average fee-for-service value of about $51.40 for Ontario family-medicine consultations and visits.

Source: CIHI National Physician Database
Year: 2024
Scope: Ontario family-medicine consultations and visits; gross clinical payment before overhead, not profit.

Scroll for source, year, and scope →

Canadian government data evidence, sources, publication years, and scope notes
Value	Approved claim	Source	Year	Scope
26%	Only 26% of Canadian adults reported getting a same- or next-day primary-care appointment in 2023.	CIHI data tables	2023	Canadian adults surveyed, Commonwealth Fund international survey.
~22%	In Ontario, roughly 22% of adults reported same- or next-day access in 2023.	CIHI data tables	2023	Ontario subset of the same Commonwealth Fund survey.
~62%	About 62% of Ontario adults reported difficulty getting after-hours care without going to an emergency department.	CIHI data tables	2023	Ontario adults, same Commonwealth Fund survey.
~4 million	An estimated 4 million Canadian adults were without a primary-care provider in 2023.	CIHI	2023	National estimate.
$37.95	OHIP intermediate family-practice assessment: $37.95.	Ontario Schedule of Benefits	2025	Ontario fee-for-service reference value; gross clinical payment before overhead, not profit.
$87.35	OHIP general assessment: $87.35.	Ontario Schedule of Benefits	2025	Ontario fee-for-service reference value; gross clinical payment before overhead, not profit.
~$51.40	CIHI reports an average fee-for-service value of about $51.40 for Ontario family-medicine consultations and visits.	CIHI National Physician Database	2024	Ontario family-medicine consultations and visits; gross clinical payment before overhead, not profit.

Tier 2 — Canadian peer-reviewed

Canadian peer-reviewed study

Canadian peer-reviewed research. The no-show findings are from one clinic and are not a national average.

24.6%

A Canadian primary-care study found a 24.6% no-show rate across 1,976 booked appointments.

Source: Canadian Family Physician
Year: 2019
Scope: Single inner-city primary-care clinic in Saskatoon. Not a national average.

44.4%

In the same study, 44.4% of new-patient appointments were missed.

Source: Canadian Family Physician
Year: 2019
Scope: Single inner-city primary-care clinic in Saskatoon. Not a national average.

32.6%

Forgetting was the single most common reason patients gave for missing an appointment.

Source: Canadian Family Physician
Year: 2019
Scope: Single inner-city primary-care clinic in Saskatoon. Not a national average.

62.8%

62.8% of surveyed no-show patients said they preferred phone-call reminders.

Source: Canadian Family Physician
Year: 2019
Scope: Single inner-city primary-care clinic in Saskatoon. Not a national average.

Scroll for source, year, and scope →

Canadian peer-reviewed study evidence, sources, publication years, and scope notes
Value	Approved claim	Source	Year	Scope
24.6%	A Canadian primary-care study found a 24.6% no-show rate across 1,976 booked appointments.	Canadian Family Physician	2019	Single inner-city primary-care clinic in Saskatoon. Not a national average.
44.4%	In the same study, 44.4% of new-patient appointments were missed.	Canadian Family Physician	2019	Single inner-city primary-care clinic in Saskatoon. Not a national average.
32.6%	Forgetting was the single most common reason patients gave for missing an appointment.	Canadian Family Physician	2019	Single inner-city primary-care clinic in Saskatoon. Not a national average.
62.8%	62.8% of surveyed no-show patients said they preferred phone-call reminders.	Canadian Family Physician	2019	Single inner-city primary-care clinic in Saskatoon. Not a national average.

Tier 3 — international peer-reviewed

International peer-reviewed research

Peer-reviewed research from international or US health-system settings.

21% → 15%

A meta-analysis of 26 studies found no-show rates fell from 21% to 15% when patients received appointment notifications.

Source: PubMed meta-analysis
Year: 2016
Scope: International meta-analysis, mixed care settings.

11.3% → 9.6%

In a study of 59,994 high-risk patients, adding automated voice outreach to SMS reduced no-shows from 11.3% to 9.6% compared with SMS alone.

Source: Penn Medicine / NEJM Catalyst via PubMed
Year: 2026
Scope: Large US health system, high-risk patient cohort.

0.61 RR

A systematic review found predictive phone-call reminders were associated with a median relative risk of 0.61 for no-shows — roughly a 39% lower no-show rate.

Source: PubMed rapid systematic review
Year: 2022
Scope: Review of targeted reminder interventions.

Scroll for source, year, and scope →

International peer-reviewed research evidence, sources, publication years, and scope notes
Value	Approved claim	Source	Year	Scope
21% → 15%	A meta-analysis of 26 studies found no-show rates fell from 21% to 15% when patients received appointment notifications.	PubMed meta-analysis	2016	International meta-analysis, mixed care settings.
11.3% → 9.6%	In a study of 59,994 high-risk patients, adding automated voice outreach to SMS reduced no-shows from 11.3% to 9.6% compared with SMS alone.	Penn Medicine / NEJM Catalyst via PubMed	2026	Large US health system, high-risk patient cohort.
0.61 RR	A systematic review found predictive phone-call reminders were associated with a median relative risk of 0.61 for no-shows — roughly a 39% lower no-show rate.	PubMed rapid systematic review	2022	Review of targeted reminder interventions.

Tier 4 — North American benchmark

North American benchmark

North American or US industry benchmarks. These do not describe a typical Ontario clinic.

5–6%

A 2024 healthcare contact-centre benchmark reported 5–6% average call abandonment — even in centres with dedicated staffing.

Source: HCIC / Greystone
Year: 2024
Scope: North American healthcare contact centres handling 55k–60k monthly calls; larger and better-resourced than a typical clinic front desk.

27–28 sec

Average speed to answer in surveyed healthcare contact centres was 27–28 seconds.

Source: HCIC / Greystone
Year: 2024
Scope: North American healthcare contact centres handling 55k–60k monthly calls; larger and better-resourced than a typical clinic front desk.

68%

In a patient-experience survey, 68% said it was frustrating to leave a voicemail and wait for a callback when trying to book.

Source: Klara / OnePoll Patient Experience Report
Year: 2022
Scope: US consumer survey.

69%

69% reported frustration when they could not reach a live person.

Source: Klara / OnePoll Patient Experience Report
Year: 2022
Scope: US consumer survey.

61%

61% reported frustration with automated voice prompts.

Source: Klara / OnePoll Patient Experience Report
Year: 2022
Scope: US consumer survey.

50%

In a healthcare consumer benchmark, only 50% of callers scheduled on the first call.

Source: Kyruus Health Benchmark Report
Year: 2023
Scope: US healthcare consumers.

44%

44% of healthcare leaders said support staffing was inadequate for patient demand.

Source: Phreesia
Year: 2023
Scope: US survey of healthcare leaders.

38%

38% of medical groups reported planning major phone or contact-centre changes.

Source: MGMA
Year: 2023
Scope: US medical groups.

Scroll for source, year, and scope →

North American benchmark evidence, sources, publication years, and scope notes
Value	Approved claim	Source	Year	Scope
5–6%	A 2024 healthcare contact-centre benchmark reported 5–6% average call abandonment — even in centres with dedicated staffing.	HCIC / Greystone	2024	North American healthcare contact centres handling 55k–60k monthly calls; larger and better-resourced than a typical clinic front desk.
27–28 sec	Average speed to answer in surveyed healthcare contact centres was 27–28 seconds.	HCIC / Greystone	2024	North American healthcare contact centres handling 55k–60k monthly calls; larger and better-resourced than a typical clinic front desk.
68%	In a patient-experience survey, 68% said it was frustrating to leave a voicemail and wait for a callback when trying to book.	Klara / OnePoll Patient Experience Report	2022	US consumer survey.
69%	69% reported frustration when they could not reach a live person.	Klara / OnePoll Patient Experience Report	2022	US consumer survey.
61%	61% reported frustration with automated voice prompts.	Klara / OnePoll Patient Experience Report	2022	US consumer survey.
50%	In a healthcare consumer benchmark, only 50% of callers scheduled on the first call.	Kyruus Health Benchmark Report	2023	US healthcare consumers.
44%	44% of healthcare leaders said support staffing was inadequate for patient demand.	Phreesia	2023	US survey of healthcare leaders.
38%	38% of medical groups reported planning major phone or contact-centre changes.	MGMA	2023	US medical groups.

Tier 5 — vendor-published

Vendor-published benchmark

Self-published vendor benchmarks. These are used sparingly and labelled wherever they appear.

59%

In one industry call-conversion benchmark published by Invoca, 59% of healthcare provider calls reached a person.

Source: Invoca Healthcare Call Conversion Benchmarks
Year: 2025
Scope: Vendor-published US benchmark across healthcare advertisers. It does not describe Canadian clinics.

48% / 40%

In the same benchmark, 48% of answered calls were booking opportunities and 40% of those converted during the call.

Source: Invoca Healthcare Call Conversion Benchmarks
Year: 2025
Scope: Vendor-published US benchmark across healthcare advertisers. It does not describe Canadian clinics.

Scroll for source, year, and scope →

Vendor-published benchmark evidence, sources, publication years, and scope notes
Value	Approved claim	Source	Year	Scope
59%	In one industry call-conversion benchmark published by Invoca, 59% of healthcare provider calls reached a person.	Invoca Healthcare Call Conversion Benchmarks	2025	Vendor-published US benchmark across healthcare advertisers. It does not describe Canadian clinics.
48% / 40%	In the same benchmark, 48% of answered calls were booking opportunities and 40% of those converted during the call.	Invoca Healthcare Call Conversion Benchmarks	2025	Vendor-published US benchmark across healthcare advertisers. It does not describe Canadian clinics.

Calculator methodology

How the illustrative estimate is calculated.

The calculator combines editable clinic inputs with clearly labelled research defaults. It does not forecast SensaAI performance.

Missed calls

Monthly inbound calls × missed-call rate

Missed bookings

Missed calls × appointment-intent rate × booking conversion rate

Appointment capacity value at risk

Missed bookings × average appointment value

Current no-shows

Monthly booked appointments × current no-show rate

Recoverable appointments

Monthly booked appointments × assumed no-show reduction

Recoverable appointment value

Recoverable appointments × average appointment value

Estimated staff hours saved

Weekly time returning missed calls × weeks per month × automatable share

Estimated staff-time value

Estimated staff hours saved × front-desk hourly wage

Total monthly opportunity

Appointment capacity value at risk + recoverable appointment value + staff-time value

Default assumptions

Monthly inbound calls: 800
Missed-call rate: 6%
Appointment-intent rate: 48%
Booking conversion rate: 40%
Monthly booked appointments: 1000
Current no-show rate: 24.6%
No-show reduction: 1.7 percentage points
Average appointment value: $51.40
Front-desk hourly wage: $25
Time returning missed calls: 6 hours per week

Model assumptions

Weeks per month: 4.33.
Automatable share of time returning missed calls: 50%.
No-show reduction is capped at 6 percentage points.
Annualized estimates multiply the monthly result by 12.

Plain-language glossary

Research terms without the jargon.

No-show: A booked appointment the patient does not attend.
Percentage point: The direct difference between two percentages. A fall from 10% to 8% is 2 percentage points.
Meta-analysis: A study that combines results from several earlier studies.
Relative risk (RR): A comparison between how often an outcome happens in two groups. An RR below 1 means it happened less often in the studied group.
Fee-for-service: A payment model where a clinician receives a listed amount for an eligible service.
Gross clinical payment: The amount paid before clinic overhead, wages, taxes, and other costs. It is not profit.

Limitations

What this evidence cannot tell you.

Canadian clinic-specific call-volume data is not publicly available.
The Canadian no-show study is single-site and is not a national average.
Vendor benchmarks are self-published and may not reflect an Ontario clinic.
SensaAI does not yet publish its own outcome data.

Figures are drawn from published research and industry benchmarks and are provided for illustration. They are not a prediction of results for any specific clinic. SensaAI does not guarantee billing or revenue outcomes.