ArticleBMC family practice2018
Assessing the representativeness of physician and patient respondents to a primary care survey using administrative data.
Article in BMC family practice, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Electronic Health Record Use Patterns Among Well-Being Survey Responders and Nonresponders: Longitudinal Observational Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Observational
- International survey of people living with chronic conditions (PaRIS survey): effects of general practitioner non-participation on the representativeness of the Norwegian patient data.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- How do respondents of primary care surveys compare to typical users of primary care? A comparison of two surveys.BMC primary care · 2023Article
- The Effect of the Familiarity of a Survey Sender on Response Outcomes in a Large-Scale Survey of Emergency Medical Services Agencies.Evaluation & the health professions · 2021Article
- Knowledge, attitude and practice of physicians regarding periconceptional folic acid for women at low risk of a neural tube defect affected pregnancy.Preventive medicine reports · 2021Article
- Factors Associated with Survey Non-Response in a Cross-Sectional Survey of Persons with an Axial Spondyloarthritis or Osteoarthritis Claims Diagnosis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Balancing patient priorities for technical and interactional aspects of care in a measure of primary care quality.Primary health care research & development · 2019Article
- Sexual healthcare knowledge, attitudes, and practices among primary care physicians in Trinidad and Tobago.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2019Article
- Determinants of Familiarity and Experience with HIV Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis in Primary Care Providers in Ontario, Canada.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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundQUALICOPC is an international survey of primary care performance. QUALICOPC data have been used in several studies, yet the representativeness of the Canadian QUALICOPC survey is unknown, potentially limiting the generalizability of findings. This study examined the representativeness of QUALICOPC physician and patient respondents in Ontario using health administrative data.
methodsThis representativeness study linked QUALICOPC physician and patient respondents in Ontario to health administrative databases at the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences. Physician respondents were compared to other physicians in their practice group and all Ontario primary care physicians on demographic and practice characteristics. Patient respondents were compared to other patients rostered to their primary care physicians, patients rostered to their physicians' practice groups, and a random sample of Ontario residents on sociodemographic characteristics, morbidity, and health care utilization. Standardized differences were calculated to compare the distribution of characteristics across cohorts.
resultsQUALICOPC physician respondents included a higher proportion of younger, female physicians and Canadian medical graduates compared to other Ontario primary care physicians. A higher proportion of physician respondents practiced in Family Health Team models, compared to the provincial proportion for primary care physicians. QUALICOPC patient respondents were more likely to be older and female, with significantly higher levels of morbidity and health care utilization, compared with the other patient groups examined. However, when looking at the QUALICOPC physicians' whole rosters, rather than just the patient survey respondents, the practice profiles were similar to those of the other physicians in their practice groups and Ontario patients in general.
conclusionsComparisons revealed some differences in responding physicians' demographic and practice characteristics, as well as differences in responding patients' characteristics compared to the other patient groups tested, which may have resulted from the visit-based sampling strategy. Ontario QUALICOPC physicians had similar practice profiles as compared to non-participating physicians, providing some evidence that the participating practices are representative of other non-participating practices, and patients selected by visit-based sampling may also be representative of visiting patients in other practices. Those using QUALICOPC data should understand this limited representativeness when generalizing results, and consider the potential for bias in their analyses.
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.