Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37355573›Full record

ReviewBMC primary care2023

What quantifies good primary care in the United States? A review of algorithms and metrics using real-world data.

Yun Wang, Jianwei Zheng, Todd Schneberk, Yu Ke, Alexandre Chan, Tao Hu, Jerika Lam, Mary Gutierrez, Ivan Portillo, Dan Wu and 4 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC primary care, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

14 authors.

Yun WangSchool of Pharmacy, Chapman University, Irvine, US. yunwang@chapman.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-9438-5586
Jianwei ZhengSchool of Pharmacy, Chapman University, Irvine, US.
Todd SchneberkGehr Center for Health Systems Science and Innovation, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, US.
Yu KeDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy Practice, School of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of California, Irvine, US.
Alexandre ChanDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy Practice, School of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of California, Irvine, US.
Tao HuDepartment of Geography, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, US.
Jerika LamSchool of Pharmacy, Chapman University, Irvine, US.
Mary GutierrezSchool of Pharmacy, Chapman University, Irvine, US.
Ivan PortilloSchool of Pharmacy, Chapman University, Irvine, US.
Dan WuDepartment of Clinical Research, Faculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London, School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Chih-Hung ChangProgram in Occupational Therapy, Department of Medicine, and Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, US.
Yang QuSchool of Pharmacy, Chapman University, Irvine, US.
Lawrence BrownSchool of Pharmacy, Chapman University, Irvine, US.
Michael B NicholSol Price School of Public Policy, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, US.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Primary care physicians (PCPs) play an indispensable role in providing comprehensive care and referring patients for specialty care and other medical services. As the COVID-19 outbreak disrupts patient access to care, understanding the quality of primary care is critical at this unprecedented moment to support patients with complex medical needs in the primary care setting and inform policymakers to redesign our primary care system. The traditional way of collecting information from patient surveys is time-consuming and costly, and novel data collection and analysis methods are needed. In this review paper, we describe the existing algorithms and metrics that use the real-world data to qualify and quantify primary care, including the identification of an individual's likely PCP (identification of plurality provider and major provider), assessment of process quality (for example, appropriate-care-model composite measures), and continuity and regularity of care index (including the interval index, variance index and relative variance index), and highlight the strength and limitation of real world data from electronic health records (EHRs) and claims data in determining the quality of PCP care. The EHR audits facilitate assessing the quality of the workflow process and clinical appropriateness of primary care practices. With extensive and diverse records, administrative claims data can provide reliable information as it assesses primary care quality through coded information from different providers or networks. The use of EHRs and administrative claims data may be a cost-effective analytic strategy for evaluating the quality of primary care.

Indexed as

BenchmarkingCOVID-19AlgorithmsHumansPrimary Health CareSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited StatesAlgorithmsClaims dataElectronic health recordsMetricsPrimary careQuality

Identifiers

PMID37355573
PMCPMC10290298

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.