Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38894620›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2024

Impact of response bias in three surveys on primary care providers' experiences with electronic health records.

Nathaniel Hendrix, Natalya Maisel, Jordan Everson, Vaishali Patel, Andrew Bazemore, Lisa S Rotenstein, A Jay Holmgren, Alex H Krist, Julia Adler-Milstein, Robert L Phillips

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Developing Content Weights for the 2026 Sports Medicine Blueprint.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Who's Not Talking? Nonresponse Bias in Healthcare Employee Well-Being Surveys.Journal of healthcare management / American College of Healthcare Executives
    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.

Nathaniel HendrixAmerican Board of Family Medicine, Lexington, KY 40511, United States.
Natalya MaiselDivision of Clinical Informatics and Digital Transformation, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94117, United States.
Jordan EversonDepartment of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC 20201, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-5355-6043
Vaishali PatelDepartment of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC 20201, United States.
Andrew BazemoreAmerican Board of Family Medicine, Lexington, KY 40511, United States.
Lisa S RotensteinDivision of Clinical Informatics and Digital Transformation, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94117, United States.
A Jay HolmgrenDivision of Clinical Informatics and Digital Transformation, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94117, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-7939-6831
Alex H KristFamily Medicine & Population Health, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA 23219, United States.
Julia Adler-MilsteinDivision of Clinical Informatics and Digital Transformation, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94117, United States.
Robert L PhillipsAmerican Board of Family Medicine, Lexington, KY 40511, United States.

Funding

HHS # 90AX0032/01-02National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, Department of Health and Human Services # 90AX0032/01-02ONCHIT HHS
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo identify impacts of different survey methodologies assessing primary care physicians' (PCPs') experiences with electronic health records (EHRs), we compared three surveys: the 2022 Continuous Certification Questionnaire (CCQ) from the American Board of Family Medicine, the 2022 University of California San Francisco (UCSF) Physician Health IT Survey, and the 2021 National Electronic Health Records Survey (NEHRS). MATERIALS AND

methodsWe evaluated differences between survey pairs using Rao-Scott corrected chi-square tests, which account for weighting.

resultsCCQ received 3991 responses from PCPs (100% response rate), UCSF received 1375 (3.6% response rate), and NEHRS received 858 (18.2% response rate). Substantial, statistically significant differences in demographics were detected across the surveys. CCQ respondents were younger and more likely to work in a health system; NEHRS respondents were more likely to work in private practice; and UCSF respondents disproportionately practiced in larger academic settings. Many EHR experience indicators were similar between CCQ and NEHRS, but CCQ respondents reported higher documentation burden. DISCUSSION: The UCSF approach is unlikely to supply reliable data. Significant demographic differences between CCQ and NEHRS raise response bias concerns, and while there were similarities in some reported EHR experiences, there were important, significant differences.

conclusionFederal EHR policy monitoring and maintenance require reliable data. This test of existing and alternative sources suggest that diversified data sources are necessary to understand physicians' experiences with EHRs and interoperability. Comprehensive surveys administered by specialty boards have the potential to contribute to these efforts, since they are likely to be free of response bias.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsPhysicians, Primary CareAdultAttitude of Health PersonnelBiasFemaleHealth Care SurveysHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited Statesgovernment dataphysician experienceresponse biassurvey methodologysurveys

Identifiers

PMID38894620
PMCPMC11258403

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.