Dataset Information

Assessment of Physician Priorities in Delivery of Preventive Care.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Primary care physicians have limited time to discuss preventive care, but it is unknown how they prioritize recommended services.

Objective

To understand primary care physicians' prioritization of preventive services.

Design, setting, and participants

This online survey was administered to primary care physicians in a large health care system from March 17 to May 12, 2017. Physicians were asked whether they prioritize preventive services and which factors contribute to their choice (5-point Likert scale). Results were analyzed from July 8, 2017, to September 19, 2019.

Exposures

A 2 × 2 factorial design of 2 hypothetical patients: (1) a 50-year-old white woman with hypertension, type 2 diabetes, hyperlipidemia, obesity, a 30-pack-year history of smoking, and a family history of breast cancer; and (2) a 45-year-old black man with hypertension, hyperlipidemia, obesity, a 30-pack-year history of smoking, and a family history of colorectal cancer. Two visit lengths (40 minutes vs 20 minutes) were given. Each patient was eligible for at least 11 preventive services.

Main outcomes and measures

Physicians rated their likelihood of discussing each service during the visit and reported their top 3 priorities for patients 1 and 2. Physician choices were compared with the preventive services most likely to improve life expectancy, using a previously published mathematical model.

Results

Of 241 physicians, 137 responded (57%), of whom 74 (54%) were female and 85 (62%) were younger than 50 years. Physicians agreed they prioritized preventive services (mean score, 4.27 [95% CI, 4.12-4.42] of 5.00), mostly by ability to improve quality (4.56 [95% CI, 4.44-4.68] of 5.00) or length (4.53 [95% CI, 4.40-4.66] of 5.00) of life. Physicians reported more prioritization in the 20- vs 40-minute visit, indicating that they were likely to discuss fewer services during the shorter visit (median, 5 [interquartile range {IQR}, 3-8] vs 11 [IQR, 9-13] preventive services for patient 1, and 4 [IQR, 3-6] vs 9 [IQR, 8-11] for patient 2). Physicians reported similar top 3 priorities for both patients: smoking cessation, hypertension control, and glycemic control for patient 1 and smoking cessation, hypertension control, and colorectal cancer screening for patient 2. Physicians' top 3 priorities did not usually include diet and exercise or weight loss (ranked in their top 3 recommendations for either patient by only 48 physicians [35%]), although these were among the 3 preventive services most likely to improve life expectancy based on the mathematical model.

Conclusions and relevance

In this survey study, physicians prioritized preventive services under time constraints, but priorities did not vary across patients. Physicians did not prioritize lifestyle interventions despite large potential benefits. Future research should consider whether physicians and patients would benefit from guidance on preventive care priorities.

SUBMITTER: Zhang JJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8103855 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe province of British Columbia is facing a family physician shortage despite consistent increases in the number of physicians per capita and ongoing reforms to address the shortage. We identify physicians' priorities for structural reform, describe the alignment of those priorities with BC's suite of reforms and compare responses between established physicians and those new to practice; we also assessed rates of burnout.MethodsAll family physicians credentialed within Vancouver Coastal Health in 2018 were invited to participate in a cross-sectional survey. Respondents were asked about their practice model and characteristics, demographics, level of burnout and reform priorities. We used χ2 tests and multivariable logistic regression to investigate associations between personal and practice characteristics, burnout and reform priorities.ResultsOf the 1017 family physicians invited to participate, 525 (51.6%) responded. Of these, 399 (76.0%) indicated a need for fundamental change to how primary care is delivered; 244 (46.4%) would prefer to be a clinic employee rather than a small business owner. Other reform priorities included options to practise in a team (stated as very important by 69.6% of respondents), direct funding for team roles (66.7%), direct clinic funding (59.8%), part-time work options (64.7%), and ability to take planned vacations and parental leave (81.1%). The importance of individual reform priorities varied based on the participants' model of practice, location and years in practice. Of respondents, 108 (21.1%) had experienced a high level of burnout.InterpretationAlmost half of family physicians would prefer to be employees rather than small business owners and over 20% reported a high level of burnout. Practice models offering direct employment model have very limited availability and are not included in the current suite of reforms in BC, potentially pulling physicians away from community-based family medicine and into other models or specialties.

Project description:IntroductionThe Veterans Choice Program expanded Veteran access to community care. The Veterans Choice Program may negatively impact the receipt of preventive care services owing to care fragmentation. This study assesses 10 measures of preventive care in Veterans with the Department of Veterans Affairs coverage before and after the Veterans Choice Program.MethodsThe study population included Veterans who responded to the National Health Interview Survey during the 2 time periods before and after Veterans Choice Program implementation: January 2011-October 2014 and November 2015-December 2018. Outcomes were preventive care services categorized as cardiovascular risk reduction (cholesterol monitoring, blood pressure monitoring, aspirin use), infectious disease prevention (influenza vaccination and HIV testing), and diabetes care (fasting blood glucose monitoring, podiatry visits, ophthalmology visits, influenza vaccination, and pneumonia vaccination). Two different analyses were conducted: (1) unadjusted and multivariable-adjusted pre-post analysis and (2) difference-in-differences analyses. Analyses were conducted in 2019.ResultsMeasures of cardiovascular risk reduction and influenza vaccination were not statistically different before and after Veterans Choice Program implementation using the 2 different analytic approaches. In unadjusted pre-post analysis, after Veterans Choice Program implementation, Veterans with Veterans Affairs coverage had increased HIV testing (66.1%‒75.4%, p=0.008), podiatry visits (22.4%‒38.3%, p=0.01), and ophthalmology visits (62.2%‒77.2%, p=0.02). Using multivariable adjustment for participant sociodemographic factors, Veterans Choice Program implementation was associated with higher odds of podiatry visits (AOR=2.28, 95% CI=1.24, 4.20, p=0.009) and ophthalmology visits (AOR=2.11, 95% CI=1.13, 3.94, p=0.02) among Veterans with diabetes. In difference-in-differences analyses, Veterans Choice Program implementation was associated with increased podiatry visits (AOR=2.95, 95% CI=1.49, 5.83, p=0.002) among Veterans with diabetes and Veterans Affairs coverage compared with that among those with other coverage types, but no statistically significant effect was observed for ophthalmology visits.ConclusionsVeterans with Veterans Affairs coverage and diabetes had an increase in podiatry visits after Veterans Choice Program implementation. There was no evidence that Veterans Choice Program implementation had a negative impact on the receipt of preventive care services among Veterans with Veterans Affairs coverage.

Project description:ImportanceDisparities in quality of care according to patient race and socioeconomic status persist in the US. Differential referral patterns to specialist physicians might be associated with observed disparities.ObjectiveTo examine whether differences exist between Black and White Medicare beneficiaries in the observed patterns of patient sharing between primary care physicians (PCPs) and physicians in the 6 specialties to which patients were most frequently referred.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional observational study of Black and White Medicare beneficiaries used claims data from 2009 to 2010 on 100% of traditional Medicare beneficiaries who were seen by PCPs and selected high-volume specialists in 12 health care markets with at least 10% of the population being Black. Statistical analyses were conducted from December 20, 2017, to September 30, 2020.ExposuresDifferences in patterns of patient sharing among Black and White patients.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary care physician and specialist degree (the number of other PCPs or specialists to whom each physician is connected) and strength (the number of shared patients per connection, overall, for Black patients and White patients and after equalizing the numbers of Black and White patients per PCP), as well as distance between PCP and patient and specialist zip code centroids.ResultsThe 12 selected markets ranged in size from Manhattan, New York (187 054 Black or White beneficiaries seen by at least 2 physicians within an episode of care; 9794 total physicians), to Tallahassee, Florida (44 644 Black or White beneficiaries seen by at least 2 physicians within an episode of care; 847 total physicians). The percentage of Black beneficiaries ranged from 11.5% (Huntsville, Alabama) to 46.8% (Chicago, Illinois). The mean PCP-specialist degree (number of specialists with whom a PCP shares patients) was lower for Black patients than for White patients. For instance, the mean PCP-cardiologist degree across all markets for White patients was 17.5 compared with 8.8 for Black patients. After sampling White patients to equalize the numbers of patients seen, the degree differences narrowed but were still not equivalent in many markets (eg, for all specialties in Baton Rouge, Louisiana: 4.5 for Black patients vs 5.7 for White patients). Specialist networks among White patients were much larger than those constructed based just on Black patients (eg, for cardiology across all markets: 135 for Black patients vs 330 for White patients), even after equalizing the numbers of patients seen per PCP (123 for Black patients vs 211 for White patients). The overall test for differences in referral patterns was statistically significant for all 6 specialties examined in 7 of the 12 markets and in 5 specialties for another 3.Conclusions and relevanceThis study suggests that differences exist in specialist referral patterns by race among Medicare beneficiaries. This is an observational study, and thus some differences might have resulted from patient-initiated visits to specialists.