Dataset Information

High-performing physicians are more likely to participate in a research study: findings from a quality improvement study.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Participants in voluntary research present a different demographic profile than those who choose not to participate, affecting the generalizability of many studies. Efforts to evaluate these differences have faced challenges, as little information is available from non-participants. Leveraging data from a recent randomized controlled trial that used health administrative databases in a jurisdiction with universal medical coverage, we sought to compare the quality of care provided by participating and non-participating physicians prior to the program's implementation in order to assess whether participating physicians provided a higher baseline quality of care. METHODS:We conducted clustered regression analyses of baseline data from provincial health administrative databases. Participants included all family physicians who were eligible to participate in the Improved Delivery of Cardiovascular Care (IDOCC) project, a quality improvement project rolled out in a geographically defined region in Ontario (Canada) between 2008 and 2011. We assessed 14 performance indicators representing measures of access, continuity, and recommended care for cancer screening and chronic disease management. RESULTS:In unadjusted and patient-adjusted models, patients of IDOCC-participating physicians had higher continuity scores at the provider (Odds Ratio (OR) [95% confidence interval]: 1.06 [1.03-1.09]) and practice (1.06 [1.04-1.08]) level, lower risk of emergency room visits (Rate Ratio (RR): 0.93 [0.88-0.97]) and hospitalizations (RR:0.87 [0.77-0.99]), and were more likely to have received recommended diabetes tests (OR: 1.25 [1.06-1.49]) and cancer screening for cervical cancer (OR: 1.32 [1.08-1.61] and breast cancer (OR: 1.32 [1.19-1.46]) than patients of non-participating physicians. Some indicators remained statistically significant in the model after adjusting for provider factors. CONCLUSIONS:Our study demonstrated a participation bias for several quality indicators. Physician characteristics can explain some of these differences. Other underlying physician or practice attributes also influence interest in participating in quality improvement initiatives and existing quality levels. The standard for addressing participation bias by controlling for basic physician and practice level variables is inadequate for ensuring that results are generalizable to primary care providers and practices.

SUBMITTER: Dahrouge S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6685269 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

High-performing physicians are more likely to participate in a research study: findings from a quality improvement study.

Dahrouge Simone S Armstrong Catherine Deri CD Hogg William W Singh Jatinderpreet J Liddy Clare C

BMC medical research methodology 20190807 1

<h4>Background</h4>Participants in voluntary research present a different demographic profile than those who choose not to participate, affecting the generalizability of many studies. Efforts to evaluate these differences have faced challenges, as little information is available from non-participants. Leveraging data from a recent randomized controlled trial that used health administrative databases in a jurisdiction with universal medical coverage, we sought to compare the quality of care provi ...[more]

PMID: 31387540

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objective:EpiNet was established to encourage epilepsy research. EpiNet is used for multicenter cohort studies and investigator-led trials. Physicians must be accredited to recruit patients into trials. Here, we describe the accreditation process for the EpiNet-First trials. Methods:Physicians with an interest in epilepsy were invited to assess 30 case scenarios to determine the following: whether patients have epilepsy; the nature of the seizures (generalized, focal); and the etiology. Information was presented in two steps for 23 cases. The EpiNet steering committee determined that 21 cases had epilepsy. The steering committee determined by consensus which responses were acceptable for each case. We chose a subset of 18 cases to accredit investigators for the EpiNet-First trials. We initially focused on 12 cases; to be accredited, investigators could not diagnose epilepsy in any case that the steering committee determined did not have epilepsy. If investigators were not accredited after assessing 12 cases, 6 further cases were considered. When assessing the 18 cases, investigators could be accredited if they diagnosed one of six nonepilepsy patients as having possible epilepsy but could make no other false-positive errors and could make only one error regarding seizure classification. Results:Between December 2013 and December 2014, 189 physicians assessed the 30 cases. Agreement with the steering committee regarding the diagnosis at step 1 ranged from 47% to 100%, and improved when information regarding tests was provided at step 2. One hundred five of the 189 physicians (55%) were accredited for the EpiNet-First trials. The kappa value for diagnosis of epilepsy across all 30 cases for accredited physicians was 0.70. Significance:We have established criteria for accrediting physicians using EpiNet. New investigators can be accredited by assessing 18 case scenarios. We encourage physicians with an interest in epilepsy to become EpiNet-accredited and to participate in these investigator-led clinical trials.

Dataset Information

High-performing physicians are more likely to participate in a research study: findings from a quality improvement study.

Publications

High-performing physicians are more likely to participate in a research study: findings from a quality improvement study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets