Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31068403›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM

Provider Perspectives of Patient Experiences in Primary Care Imaging.

Monica L Zigman Suchsland, Victoria Hardy, Ying Zhang, Patrick D Vigil, Kimberly L Collins, William M Woodhouse, Roger Chou, Steven D Findlay, Danielle C Lavallee, Matthew J Thompson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

10 authors.

Monica L Zigman SuchslandFrom the Department of Family Medicine (MLZS, VH, YZ, KLC, MJT), Surgical Outcomes Research Center, Department of Surgery, (DCL) of the University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Community Health Care, Tacoma, WA (PDV); Family Medicine Residency, Idaho State University, Pocatello, Idaho (WMW); Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon (RC); Independent health policy researcher and consumer advocate (SDF). mzigman@uw.edu.
Victoria HardyFrom the Department of Family Medicine (MLZS, VH, YZ, KLC, MJT), Surgical Outcomes Research Center, Department of Surgery, (DCL) of the University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Community Health Care, Tacoma, WA (PDV); Family Medicine Residency, Idaho State University, Pocatello, Idaho (WMW); Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon (RC); Independent health policy researcher and consumer advocate (SDF).
Ying ZhangFrom the Department of Family Medicine (MLZS, VH, YZ, KLC, MJT), Surgical Outcomes Research Center, Department of Surgery, (DCL) of the University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Community Health Care, Tacoma, WA (PDV); Family Medicine Residency, Idaho State University, Pocatello, Idaho (WMW); Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon (RC); Independent health policy researcher and consumer advocate (SDF).
Patrick D VigilFrom the Department of Family Medicine (MLZS, VH, YZ, KLC, MJT), Surgical Outcomes Research Center, Department of Surgery, (DCL) of the University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Community Health Care, Tacoma, WA (PDV); Family Medicine Residency, Idaho State University, Pocatello, Idaho (WMW); Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon (RC); Independent health policy researcher and consumer advocate (SDF).
Kimberly L CollinsFrom the Department of Family Medicine (MLZS, VH, YZ, KLC, MJT), Surgical Outcomes Research Center, Department of Surgery, (DCL) of the University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Community Health Care, Tacoma, WA (PDV); Family Medicine Residency, Idaho State University, Pocatello, Idaho (WMW); Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon (RC); Independent health policy researcher and consumer advocate (SDF).
William M WoodhouseFrom the Department of Family Medicine (MLZS, VH, YZ, KLC, MJT), Surgical Outcomes Research Center, Department of Surgery, (DCL) of the University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Community Health Care, Tacoma, WA (PDV); Family Medicine Residency, Idaho State University, Pocatello, Idaho (WMW); Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon (RC); Independent health policy researcher and consumer advocate (SDF).
Roger ChouFrom the Department of Family Medicine (MLZS, VH, YZ, KLC, MJT), Surgical Outcomes Research Center, Department of Surgery, (DCL) of the University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Community Health Care, Tacoma, WA (PDV); Family Medicine Residency, Idaho State University, Pocatello, Idaho (WMW); Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon (RC); Independent health policy researcher and consumer advocate (SDF).
Steven D FindlayFrom the Department of Family Medicine (MLZS, VH, YZ, KLC, MJT), Surgical Outcomes Research Center, Department of Surgery, (DCL) of the University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Community Health Care, Tacoma, WA (PDV); Family Medicine Residency, Idaho State University, Pocatello, Idaho (WMW); Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon (RC); Independent health policy researcher and consumer advocate (SDF).
Danielle C LavalleeFrom the Department of Family Medicine (MLZS, VH, YZ, KLC, MJT), Surgical Outcomes Research Center, Department of Surgery, (DCL) of the University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Community Health Care, Tacoma, WA (PDV); Family Medicine Residency, Idaho State University, Pocatello, Idaho (WMW); Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon (RC); Independent health policy researcher and consumer advocate (SDF).
Matthew J ThompsonFrom the Department of Family Medicine (MLZS, VH, YZ, KLC, MJT), Surgical Outcomes Research Center, Department of Surgery, (DCL) of the University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Community Health Care, Tacoma, WA (PDV); Family Medicine Residency, Idaho State University, Pocatello, Idaho (WMW); Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon (RC); Independent health policy researcher and consumer advocate (SDF).

Funding

Transform Dissemination and Implementation Science in CTSA ProgramsUL1TR002319 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI John K. Amory · 2017 to 2026
$100.0M
INSTITUTE FOR TRANSLATIONAL HEALTH SCIENCE (UL1): BPCAUL1RR025014 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI DISIS, MARY L. · 2007 to 2011
$51.5M
Institute of Translational Health SciencesUL1TR000423 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI DISIS, MARY L. · 2012 to 2016
$49.4M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000423NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002319NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR025014
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImaging tests are a widely used tool in primary care with many known benefits. Without an understanding of which outcomes matter the most to patients, clinicians are challenged to balance the benefits and harms of imaging tests. This study aimed to explore the perceived impacts imaging tests have on patients from the perspective of the primary care providers (PCPs) and determine PCPs' understanding of patient-centered outcomes (PCOs) from imaging tests.

methodsRecruitment of PCPs occurred at 4 family medicine clinics in Washington and Idaho. Primary care physicians, nurse practitioners, or physician assistants who order imaging tests were eligible to participate. Semistructured interviews explored providers' perceptions of patient experiences during the process of ordering, performing and following up on imaging tests. Classic content analysis generated themes and subthemes.

resultsSixteen PCPs, including 11 physicians, 3 physician assistants, and 2 nurse practitioners, completed interviews. Two themes were identified: 1) perceived PCOs, and 2) factors influencing the incorporation of PCOs into clinical management. Perceived outcomes included emotions related to the answer a test provides and costs to the patient such as monetary, physical, and added risk. Patient expectations, provider-patient communication, and inadequate knowledge all contributed as barriers to incorporating PCOs into clinical management. DISCUSSION: PCPs recognize different outcomes of imaging tests that they consider important for patients. While providers are perceptive to patient outcomes there remains a challenge to how patient outcomes are used to improve care. Communication with patients and improving provider knowledge are needed to incorporate identified PCOs.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelPatient Outcome AssessmentAdultAgedClinical CompetenceCommunicationFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNurse PractitionersPhysician AssistantsPhysicians, Primary CarePrimary Health CareQualitative ResearchQuality ImprovementFamily PhysiciansNurse PractitionersPhysician AssistantsPrimary Health CareQualitative ResearchShared Decision Making

Identifiers

PMID31068403
PMCPMC7050574

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.