ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2025
Differences in Ambulatory Care Outcomes Between Trainees and Faculty: A Multi-center Study.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2025. 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.
- Understanding Low Breast Cancer Screening Rates by Resident Physicians.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAcademic medical centers (AMCs) provide the nation's most complex care, with no differences in performance between trainees and faculty for inpatient outcomes. Single-center analyses demonstrated low performance on ambulatory outcomes among residents vs. faculty.
objectiveDetermine whether resident-faculty ambulatory care performance disparities are a national problem, understand contributing factors present in AMCs.
designRetrospective cohort study, survey-based study
participantsA total of 146,961 patients receiving primary care at five AMCs within resident-faculty primary care training practices during calendar year 2019. Resident clinic directors at each of the sites participated in the survey-based analysis. MAIN MEASURES: The main exposure was whether the patients received primary care in a faculty-supervised resident vs. faculty-only cohort. Outcome measures included rates of colorectal and breast cancer screening and control of type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension between the resident and faculty cohorts. We also assessed the level of agreement with five components of high-functioning primary care as defined by the National Academies of Sciences in interviews with residency practice leadership. KEY
resultsAfter adjustment for key differences in social complexity, we observed resident-faculty disparities across all five sites for all outcomes, with disparities in breast cancer screening from RR 0.69 (0.62-0.78)-0.71 (0.63-0.80); disparities in colorectal cancer screening from RR 0.77 (0.68-0.88) to 0.90 (0.86-0.93); disparities in control of type 2 diabetes mellitus from RR 0.82 (0.69-0.97) to 0.90 (0.86-0.93); and disparities in control of hypertension from RR 0.79 (0.68-0.91) to 0.87 (0.79-0.95). The magnitude of resident-faculty performance disparities may be related to the likelihood of disagreement with the five components of high-functioning primary care.
conclusionsResidents performed lower than faculty on routine ambulatory quality measures. The magnitude and number of disparities may be related to disagreement on the presence of components of high-functioning primary care. These findings highlight the need for more robust infrastructural support in primary care settings to meet the needs of patients.
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.