To support their efforts to promote high quality and efficient care, policymakers need to better understand the key factors associated with variations in physicians' decisions, and in particular, physician deviations from evidence-based care. Clinical vignette survey instruments hold potential for research in this area as an approach that both allows for practical, large-scale study and overcomes the data quality challenges posed by analysis of clinical data. These surveys present respondents with a narrative description of a hypothetical patient case and solicit responses to one or more questions regarding the care of the patient. In this review, we describe various methods for measuring variations in physicians' decisions and highlight a range of design features researchers should consider when developing a clinical vignette survey. We conclude by identifying areas for future research.
BACKGROUND: Databases of practicing physicians are important for studies that require sampling physicians or counting the physician population in a given area. However, little is known about how the three main sampling frames differ from each other. OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to compare the National Provider and Plan Enumeration System (NPPES), the American Medical Association Masterfile and the SK&A physician file. METHODS: We randomly sampled 3000 physicians from the NPPES (500 in six specialties). We conducted two-and three-way comparisons across three databases to determine the extent to which they matched on address and specialty. In addition, we randomly selected 1200 physicians (200 per specialty) for telephone verification. KEY RESULTS: One thousand, six hundred and fiftyfive physicians (55 %) were found in all three data files. The SK&A data file had the highest rate of missing physicians when compared to the NPPES, and varied by specialty (50 % in radiology vs. 28 % in cardiology). NPPES and SK&A had the highest rates of matching mailing address information, while the AMA Masterfile had low rates compared with the NPPES. We were able to confirm 65 % of physicians' address information by phone. The NPPES and SK&A had similar rates of correct address information in phone verification (72-94 % and 79-92 %, respectively, across specialties), while the AMA Masterfile had significantly lower rates of correct address information across all specialties (32-54 % across specialties). CONCLUSIONS: None of the data files in this study were perfect; the fact that we were unable to reach one-third of our telephone verification sample is troubling. However, the study offers some encouragement for researchers conducting physician surveys. The NPPES and to a lesser extent, the SK&A file, appear to provide reasonably accurate, up-to-date address information for physicians billing public and provider insurers.
Despite the prevalence of vertical integration, data and research focused on identifying and describing health systems are sparse. Until recently, we lacked an enumeration of health systems and an understanding of how systems vary by key structural attributes. To fill this gap, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality developed the Compendium of U.S. Health Systems, a data resource to support research on comparative health system performance. In this article, we describe the methods used to create the Compendium and present a picture of vertical integration in the United States. We identified 626 health systems in 2016, which accounted for 70% of nonfederal general acute care hospitals. These systems varied by key structural attributes, including size, ownership, and geographic presence. The Compendium can be used to study the characteristics of the U.S. health care system and address policy issues related to provider organizations.
This assessment indicates that, overall, the Healthy People 2010 mammography utilization target is being met. However, though utilization is improving for some at-risk groups, women without health insurance; women without a personal doctor; and women not receiving basic, preventive care fall short of the Healthy People 2010 target.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.