Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18025486›Full record

ArticleAnnals of family medicine

Pursuing equity: contact with primary care and specialist clinicians by demographics, insurance, and health status.

Robert L Ferrer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of family medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

46 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Ambulatory Care Fragmentation and Incident Stroke.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2021
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Differences in ambulatory care fragmentation by race.BMC health services research · 2021
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Primary Care Providers in California and Florida Report Low Confidence in Providing Type 1 Diabetes Care.Clinical diabetes : a publication of the American Diabetes Association · 2020
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Robert L FerrerDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, Tex, USA. ferrerr@uthscsa.edu

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeLong-term shifts in specialty choice and health workforce policy have raised concern about the future of primary care in the United States. The objective of this study was to examine current use of primary and specialty care across the US population for policy-relevant subgroups, such as disadvantaged populations and persons with chronic illness.

methodsData from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey from 2004 were analyzed using a probability sample patients or other participants from the noninstitutionalized US population in 2004 (N = 34,403). The main and secondary outcome measures were the estimates of the proportion of Americans who accessed different types of primary care and specialty physicians and midlevel practitioners, as well as the fraction of ambulatory visits accounted for by the different clinician types. Data were disaggregated by income, health insurance status, race/ethnicity, rural or urban residence, and presence of 5 common chronic diseases.

resultsFamily physicians were the most common clinician type accessed by adults, seniors, and reproductive-age women, and they were second to pediatricians for children. Disadvantaged adults with 3 markers of disadvantage (poverty, disadvantaged minority, uninsured) received 45.6% (95% CI, 40.4%-50.7%) of their ambulatory visits from family physicians vs 30.5% (95% CI, 30.0%-32.1%) for adults with no markers. For children with 3 vs 0 markers of disadvantage, the proportion of visits from family physicians roughly doubled from 16.5% (95% CI, 14.4%-18.6%) to 30.1% (95% CI, 18.8%-41.2%). Family physicians constitute the only clinician group that does not show income disparities in access. Multivariate analyses show that patterns of access to family physicians and nurse-practitioners are more equitable than for other clinician types.

conclusionsPrimary care clinicians, especially family physicians, deliver a disproportionate share of ambulatory care to disadvantaged populations. A diminished primary care workforce will leave considerable gaps in US health care equity. Health care workforce policy should reflect this important population-level function of primary care.

Indexed as

WorkloadAdultChildEconomics, MedicalFamily PracticeFemaleHealth Care SurveysHealth Services AccessibilityHealth WorkforceHumansIncomeInsurance, Physician ServicesMaleMedically UninsuredMedicineMultivariate Analysis

Identifiers

PMID18025486
PMCPMC2094023

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.