Trial reportMedical care2012
A field experiment on the impact of physician-level performance data on consumers' choice of physician.
Trial report in Medical care, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Mechanisms and impact of public reporting on physicians and hospitals' performance: A systematic review (2000-2020).PloS one · 2021Pooled it
- How exposure to patient narratives affects stereotyped choices of primary care clinicians.PloS one · 2023Article
- Complexity, public reporting, and choice of doctors: a look inside the blackest box of consumer behavior.Medical care research and review : MCRR · 2014Article
- Trusting Sources of Information on Quality of Physician Care.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn 2008, HealthPlus of Michigan introduced an online primary care provider (PCP) report that displays clinical quality data and patients' ratings of their experiences with PCPs on a public web site. DESIGN AND PROCEDURE: A randomized encouragement design was used to examine the impact of HealthPlus's online physician-quality report on new plan members' choice of a PCP. This study evaluated the impact of an added encouragement to utilize the report by randomizing half of new adult plan members in 2009-2010, who were required to select a PCP (N=1347), to receive a 1-page letter signed by the health plan's chief medical officer emphasizing the importance of the online report and a brief phone call reminder. We examined the use of the report and the quality of PCPs selected by participants.
resultsTwenty-eight percent of participants in the encouragement condition versus 22% in the control condition looked at the online report before selecting a PCP. Although participants in the encouragement condition selected PCPs with higher patient experience ratings than did control participants, this difference was not explained by their increased likelihood of accessing the online report.
conclusionsHealth plan members can be encouraged successfully to access physician-level quality data using an inexpensive letter and automated phone call. However, a large proportion of missing data in HealthPlus's online report may have limited the influence of the physician-quality report on consumer choice.
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.