Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32291718›Full record

ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2020

Does Provider Gender Affect the Quality of Primary Care?

Jeffrey L Jackson, Amy Farkas, Cecilia Scholcoff

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
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

3 authors.

Jeffrey L JacksonZablocki VAMC, Milwaukee, WI, USA. jjackson@mcw.edu.
Amy FarkasZablocki VAMC, Milwaukee, WI, USA.
Cecilia ScholcoffZablocki VAMC, Milwaukee, WI, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWomen providers have a more patient-centered communication style than men, and some studies have found women primary care providers are more likely to meet quality performance measures.

objectiveTo explore gender differences in the quality of primary care process and outcome measures.

designRetrospective analysis of primary care performance data from 1 year (2018-2019).

participantsA total of 586 primary care providers (311 women and 275 men) who cared for 241,428 primary care patients at 96 primary care clinics at 8 Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers. MAIN MEASURES: Our primary outcome was a composite quality measure that averaged all thirty-four primary care performance measures that assessed performance in cancer screening, diabetes care, cardiovascular care, tobacco counseling, risky alcohol screening, immunizations, HIV testing, opiate care, and continuity. Our secondary outcomes were performance on each of the 34 measures. KEY

resultsThere was no difference in the average performance on our composite measure between men and women (75.8% vs. 76.6%, p = 0.17). Among the 34 primary care quality measures collected, there was no difference between male and female providers' performance. Using a more conservative cut-point, women were more likely to screen at-risk diabetic patients for hypoglycemia and document follow-up on risky alcohol behavior noted during patient check-in. These differences were clinically small and likely due to chance, given the multiple measures evaluated in this study.

conclusionsWe found little evidence of difference in the performance on primary care quality measures between male and female providers.

Indexed as

United States Department of Veterans AffairsVeteransFemaleHumansMalePrimary Health CareQuality of Health CareRetrospective StudiesUnited States

Identifiers

PMID32291718
PMCPMC7352031

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.