Trial reportJournal of general internal medicine2003
Patient choice. A randomized controlled trial of provider selection.
Trial report in Journal of general internal medicine, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Decision coaching for people making healthcare decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Interventions for improving patients' trust in doctors and groups of doctors.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014Pooled it
- What is the role of the general practitioner towards the family caregiver of a community-dwelling demented relative? A systematic literature review.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2009Pooled it
- Patient-centered communication: do patients really prefer it?Journal of general internal medicine · 2004Trial
- Conceptualizing and Measuring Trust, Mistrust, and Distrust: Implications for Advancing Health Equity and Building Trustworthiness.Annual review of public health · 2024Review
- Social determinants of health and treatment center affiliation: analysis from the sickle cell disease implementation consortium registry.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Understanding the Association of Internalized HIV Stigma with Retention in HIV Care.Journal of HIV and AIDS · 2018Article
- Older patients and their GPs: shared decision making in enhancing trust.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2014Article
- Changing practice as a quality indicator for primary care: analysis of data on voluntary disenrollment from the English GP Patient Survey.BMC family practice · 2013Article
- Generalizability of epidemiological findings and public health decisions: an illustration from the Rochester Epidemiology Project.Mayo Clinic proceedings · 2012Article
- The primary care physician and Alzheimer’s disease: an international position paper.The journal of nutrition, health & aging · 2011Article
- Consumer satisfaction with primary care provider choice and associated trust.BMC health services research · 2006Article
- The parent-provider relationship: does race/ethnicity concordance or discordance influence parent reports of the receipt of high quality basic pediatric preventive services?Journal of urban health : bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine · 2005Article
- Virtual physicians, health systems, and the healing relationship.Journal of general internal medicine · 2003Article
- Health information technology and physician-patient interactions: impact of computers on communication during outpatient primary care visits.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIAArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the impact of an intervention designed to help patients choose a new primary care provider (PCP) compared with the usual method of assigning patients to a new PCP.
designRandomized controlled trial conducted between November 1998 and June 2000.
interventionProvision of telephone or web-based provider-specific information to aid in the selection of a provider.
settingMedical center within a large HMO. PATIENTS: One thousand and ninety patients who were >/=30 years old, whose previous PCP had retired and who responded to a mailed questionnaire 1 year after linkage with a new PCP. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN
resultsThe questionnaire assessed perceptions of choice, satisfaction, trust, and retention of the PCP. During the intervention period, 85% of subjects obtained a new PCP. Intervention subjects were more likely to perceive that they chose their PCP (78% vs 22%; P <.001), to retain their PCP at 1 year (93% vs 69%; P <.001), and to report greater overall satisfaction with the PCP (67% vs 57%; P <.01), compared to control subjects who were assigned to a PCP. The intervention subjects also reported greater trust in their PCP on most measures, but these differences did not remain statistically significant after adjustments for patient age, gender, ethnicity, education, and health status.
conclusionsEncouraging patients to choose their PCP can result in mutually beneficial outcomes for both patients and providers, such as greater overall satisfaction and duration of the relationship. Further research is needed to identify the types of information most useful in making this choice and to understand the relevant underlying patient expectations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.