Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24567201›Full record

ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2014

Trends and quality of care in outpatient visits to generalist and specialist physicians delivering primary care in the United States, 1997-2010.

Samuel T Edwards, John N Mafi, Bruce E Landon

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Clinical background factors affecting outcomes ofJournal of general and family medicine · 2019
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

3 authors.

Samuel T EdwardsSection of General Internal Medicine, Veterans Affairs (VA) Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA.
John N Mafi
Bruce E Landon

Funding

PHS HHS T32HP12706
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough many specialists serve as primary care physicians (PCPs), the type of patients they serve, the range of services they provide, and the quality of care they deliver is uncertain.

objectiveTo describe trends in patient, physician, and visit characteristics, and compare visit-based quality for visits to generalists and specialists self-identified as PCPs.

designCross-sectional study and time trend analysis. DATA: Nationally representative sample of visits to office-based physicians from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, 1997-2010. MAIN MEASURES: Proportions of primary care visits to generalist and specialists, patient characteristics, principal diagnoses, and quality. KEY

resultsAmong 84,041 visits to self-identified PCPs representing an estimated 4.0 billion visits, 91.5 % were to generalists, 5.9 % were to medical specialists and 2.6 % were to obstetrician/gynecologists. The proportion of PCP visits to generalists increased from 88.4 % in 1997 to 92.4 % in 2010, but decreased for medical specialists from 8.0 % to 4.8 %, p = 0.04). The proportion of medical specialist visits in which the physician self-identified as the patient's PCP decreased from 30.6 % in 1997 to 9.8 % in 2010 (p < 0.01). Medical specialist PCPs take care of older patients (mean age 61 years), and dedicate most of their visits to chronic disease management (51.0 %), while generalist PCPs see younger patients (mean age 55.4 years) most commonly for new problems (40.5 %). Obstetrician/gynecologists self-identified as PCPs see younger patients (mean age 38.3 p < 0.01), primarily for preventive care (54.0 %, p < 0.01). Quality of care for cardiovascular disease was better in visits to cardiologists than in visits to generalists, but was similar or better in visits to generalists compared to visits to other medical specialists.

conclusionsMedical specialists are less frequently serving as PCPs for their patients over time. Generalist, medical specialist, and obstetrician/gynecologist PCPs serve different primary care roles for different populations. Delivery redesign efforts must account for the evolving role of generalist and specialist PCPs in the delivery of primary care.

Indexed as

General PractitionersOffice VisitsPrimary Health CareSpecializationChronic DiseaseCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHealth Care SurveysHumansMaleMiddle AgedOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CarePatient-Centered CarePhysicians, Primary CarePractice Patterns, Physicians'Quality Indicators, Health Care

Identifiers

PMID24567201
PMCPMC4026490

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.