Trial reportPediatrics2016
Patient Navigators and Parent Use of Quality Data: A Randomized Trial.
Trial report in Pediatrics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
- Factors That Matter to Low-Income and Racial/Ethnic Minority Mothers When Choosing a Pediatric Practice: a Mixed Methods Analysis.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2017Trial
- Physician Beliefs About Online Reporting of Quality and Experience Data.Journal of general internal medicine · 2019Article
- Spatial analysis of factors influencing choice of paediatric practice for mothers from low-income and minority populations.Journal of paediatrics and child health · 2019Article
- Use of EHR-Based Pediatric Quality Measures: Views of Health System Leaders and Parents.American journal of medical quality : the official journal of the American College of Medical QualityArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundConsumers rarely use publicly reported health care quality data. Despite known barriers to use, few studies have explored the effectiveness of strategies to overcome barriers in vulnerable populations.
methodsThis randomized controlled trial tested the impact of a patient navigator intervention to increase consumer use of publicly reported quality data. Patients attending an urban prenatal clinic serving a vulnerable population enrolled between May 2013 and January 2015. The intervention consisted of 2 in-person sessions in which women learned about quality performance and viewed scores for local practices on the Massachusetts Health Quality Partners Web site. Women in both the intervention and control arms received a pamphlet about health care quality. Primary study outcomes were mean clinical quality and patient experience scores of the practices women selected (range 1-4 stars).
resultsNearly all (726/746; 97.3%) women completed the study, 59.7% were Hispanic, and 65.1% had a high school education or less. In both unadjusted and adjusted models, women in the intervention group chose practices with modestly higher mean clinical quality (3.2 vs 3.0 stars; P = .001) and patient experience (3.0 vs 2.9 stars; P = .05) scores. When asked to rate what factors mattered the most in their decision, few cited quality scores.
conclusionsAn intervention to reduce barriers to using publicly reported health care quality data had a modest effect on patient choice. These findings suggest that factors other than performance on common publicly reported quality metrics have a stronger influence on which pediatric practices women choose.
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.