ArticlePediatrics2021
Provider Specialty and Receipt of Metabolic Monitoring for Children Taking Antipsychotics.
Article in Pediatrics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Adherence to antipsychotic laboratory monitoring guidelines in children and youth: a population-based study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesMetabolic monitoring is important for children taking antipsychotic medication, given the risk for increased BMI, impaired glucose metabolism, and hyperlipidemia. The purpose was to examine the influence of provider specialty on the receipt of metabolic monitoring. Specifically, differences in the receipt of recommended care when a child receives outpatient care from a primary care provider (PCP), a mental health provider with prescribing privileges, or both was examined.
methodsMedicaid enrollment and health care and pharmacy claims data from 2 states were used in the analyses. Providers were assigned to specialties by using a crosswalk of the National Provider Identifier numbers to specialty type. A total of 41 078 children were included.
resultsFor both states, 61% of children saw ≥1 provider type and had adjusted odds ratios for receiving metabolic monitoring that were significantly higher than those of children seeing PCPs only. For example, children seeing a PCP and a mental health provider with prescribing privileges during the year had adjusted odds of receiving metabolic monitoring that were 42% higher than those seeing a PCP alone (
conclusionsShared care arrangements significantly increased the chances that metabolic monitoring would be done. For states, health plans, and clinicians to develop meaningful quality improvement strategies, identifying the multiple providers caring for the children and potentially responsible for ordering tests consistent with evidence-based care is essential. Provider attribution in the context of shared care arrangements plays a critical role in driving quality improvement efforts.
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.