ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2017
Perceptions of Risk Stratification Workflows in Primary Care.
Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Care delivery team composition effect on hospitalization risk in African Americans with congestive heart failure.PloS one · 2023Article
- Risk Stratification in Primary Care: Value-Based Contributions of Provider Adjudication.Journal of general internal medicine · 2022Article
- Of Screening, Stratification, and Scores.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Review
- Socially situated risk: challenges and strategies for implementing algorithmic risk scoring for care management.JAMIA open · 2021Article
- Primary care practices' ability to predict future risk of expenditures and hospitalization using risk stratification and segmentation.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2021Article
- Data-Driven Diffusion Of Innovations: Successes And Challenges In 3 Large-Scale Innovative Delivery Models.Health affairs (Project Hope) · 2018Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Risk stratification (RS) in primary care is frequently used by policy-makers, payers, and health systems; the process requires risk assessment for adverse health outcomes across a population to assign patients into risk tiers and allow care management (CM) resources to be targeted effectively. Our objective was to understand the approach to and perception of RS in primary care practices. An online survey was developed, tested, and administered to 148 representatives of 37 primary care practices engaged in RS varying in size, location and ownership. The survey assessed practices' approach to, perception of, and confidence in RS, and its effect on subsequent CM activities. We examined psychometric properties of the survey to determine validity and conducted chi-square analyses to determine the association between practice characteristics and confidence and agreement with risk scores. The survey yielded a 68% response rate (100 respondents). Overall, participants felt moderately confident in their risk scores (range 41-53.8%), and moderately to highly confident in their subsequent CM workflows (range 46-68%). Respondents from small and independent practices were more likely to have higher confidence and agreement with their RS approaches and scores (
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.