ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2017
Patient Experience with the Patient-Centered Medical Home in Michigan's Statewide Multi-Payer Demonstration: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- How the CAHPS Clinician and Group Patient Experience Survey Data Have Been Used in Research: A Systematic Review.Journal of patient-centered research and reviews · 2024Review
- Associations of the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Clinician and Group Survey Scores with Interventions and Site, Provider, and Patient Factors: A Systematic Review of the Evidence.Journal of patient experience · 2024Article
- Associations Between Primary Care Providers and Staff-Reported Access Management Challenges and Patient Perceptions of Access.Journal of general internal medicine · 2023Article
- A Patient-Centred Medical Home Care Model for Community-Dwelling Older Adults in Singapore: A Mixed-Method Study on Patient's Care Experience.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Mental health care integration and primary care patient experience in the Veterans Health Administration.Healthcare (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2021Article
- Patients' and Caregivers' Experiences with the Multi-Payer Advanced Primary Care Practice Demonstration.Journal of general internal medicine · 2020Article
- Organizational Processes and Patient Experiences in the Patient-centered Medical Home.Medical care · 2018Article
- Transforming Primary Care in New York Through Patient-Centered Medical Homes: Findings From Qualitative Research.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe literature on patient-centered medical homes (PCMHs) and patient experience is somewhat mixed. Government and private payers are promoting multi-payer PCMH initiatives to align requirements and resources and to enhance practice transformation outcomes. To this end, the multipayer Michigan Primary Care Transformation (MiPCT) demonstration project was carried out.
objectiveTo examine whether the PCMH is associated with a better patient experience, and whether a mature, multi-payer PCMH demonstration is associated with even further improvement in the patient experience.
designThis is a cross-sectional comparison of adults attributed to MiPCT PCMH, non-participating PCMH, and non-PCMH practices, statistically controlling for potential confounders, and conducted among both general and high-risk patient samples.
participantsResponses came from 3893 patients in the general population and 4605 in the high-risk population (response rates of 31.8% and 34.1%, respectively). MAIN MEASURES: The Clinician and Group Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey, with PCMH supplemental questions, was administered in January and February 2015. KEY
resultsMiPCT general and high-risk patients reported a significantly better experience than non-PCMH patients in most domains. Adjusted mean differences were as follows: access (0.35**, 0.36***), communication (0.19*, 0.18*), and coordination (0.33**, 0.35***), respectively (on a 10-point scale, with significance indicated by: *= p<0.05, **= p<0.01, and ***= p<0.001). Adjusted mean differences in overall provider ratings were not significant. Global odds ratios were significant for the domains of self-management support (1.38**, 1.41***) and comprehensiveness (1.67***, 1.61***). Non-participating PCMH ratings fell between MiPCT and non-PCMH across all domains and populations, sometimes attaining statistical significance.
conclusionsPCMH practices have more positive patient experiences across domains characteristic of advanced primary care. A mature multi-payer model has the strongest, most consistent association with a better patient experience, pointing to the need to provide consistent expectations, resources, and time for practice transformation. Our results held for a general population and a high-risk population which has much more contact with the healthcare system.
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.