↓ Skip to main content

How Primary Care Physicians Integrate Price Information into Clinical Decision-Making

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
Title
How Primary Care Physicians Integrate Price Information into Clinical Decision-Making
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, August 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11606-016-3805-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katherine H. Schiavoni, Lisa Soleymani Lehmann, Wendy Guan, Meredith Rosenthal, Thomas D. Sequist, Alyna T. Chien

Abstract

Little is known about how primary care physicians (PCPs) in routine outpatient practice use paid price information (i.e., the amount that insurers finally pay providers) in daily clinical practice. To describe the experiences of PCPs who have had paid price information on tests and procedures for at least 1 year. Cross-sectional study using semi-structured interviews and the constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Forty-six PCPs within an accountable care organization. Via the ordering screen of their electronic health record, PCPs were presented with the median paid price for commonly ordered tests and procedures (e.g., blood tests, x-rays, CTs, MRIs). We asked PCPs for (a) their "gut reaction" to having paid price information, (b) the situations in which they used price information in clinical decision-making separate from or jointly with patients, (c) their thoughts on who bore the chief responsibility for discussing price information with patients, and (d) suggestions for improving physician-targeted price information interventions. Among "gut reactions" that ranged from positive to negative, all PCPs were more interested in having patient-specific price information than paid prices from the practice perspective. PCPs described that when patients' out-of-pocket spending concerns were revealed, price information helped them engage patients in conversations about how to alter treatment plans to make them more affordable. PCPs stated that having price information only slightly altered their test-ordering patterns and that they avoided mentioning prices when advising patients against unnecessary testing. Most PCPs asserted that physicians bear the chief responsibility for discussing prices with patients because of their clinical knowledge and relationships with patients. They wished for help from patients, practices, health plans, and society in order to support price transparency in healthcare. Physician-targeted price transparency efforts may provide PCPs with the information they need to respond to patients' concerns regarding out-of-pocket affordability rather than that needed to change test-ordering habits.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 56 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 23%
Researcher 7 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Other 5 9%
Other 12 21%
Unknown 9 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 16%
Social Sciences 7 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 7%
Psychology 4 7%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 10 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 January 2024.
All research outputs
#1,309,179
of 25,365,817 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#1,043
of 8,171 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,461
of 349,457 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#17
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,365,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,171 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 349,457 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.