↓ Skip to main content

Perceived Barriers to Implementing Individual Choosing Wisely® Recommendations in Two National Surveys of Primary Care Providers

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
58 X users
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
102 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
104 Mendeley
Title
Perceived Barriers to Implementing Individual Choosing Wisely® Recommendations in Two National Surveys of Primary Care Providers
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, September 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11606-016-3853-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, Jeffrey T. Kullgren, Angela Fagerlin, Mandi L. Klamerus, Steven J. Bernstein, Eve A. Kerr

Abstract

While some research has examined general attitudes about efforts to reduce overutilization of services, such as the Choosing Wisely(®) (CW) initiative, little data exists regarding primary care providers' attitudes regarding individual recommendations. We sought to identify whether particular CW recommendations were perceived by primary care providers as difficult to follow, difficult for patients to accept, or both. Two national surveys, one by mail to a random sample of 2000 U.S. primary care physicians in November 2013, and the second electronically to a random sample of 2500 VA primary care providers (PCPs) in October-December 2014. A total of 603 U.S. primary care physicians and 1173 VA primary care providers. Response rates were 34 and 48 %, respectively. PCP ratings of whether 12 CW recommendations for screening, testing and treatments applicable to adult primary care were difficult to follow and difficult for patients to accept; and ratings of potential barriers to reducing overutilization. For four recommendations regarding not screening or testing in asymptomatic patients, less than 20 % of PCPs found the CW recommendations difficult to accept (range 7.2-16.6 %) or difficult for patients to follow (12.2-19.3 %). For five recommendations regarding testing or treatment for symptomatic conditions, however, there was both variation in reported difficulty to follow (9.8-32 %) and a high level of reported difficulty for patients to accept (35.7-87.1 %). The most frequently reported barriers to reducing overuse included malpractice concern, patient requests for services, lack of time for shared decision making, and the number of tests recommended by specialists. While PCPs found many CW recommendations easy to follow, they felt that some, especially those for symptomatic conditions, would be difficult for patients to accept. Overcoming PCPs' perceptions of patient acceptability will require approaches beyond routine physician education, feedback and financial incentives.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 58 X users 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 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 103 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 13%
Other 12 12%
Researcher 12 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 8%
Other 21 20%
Unknown 22 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 12%
Social Sciences 7 7%
Psychology 3 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 3%
Other 8 8%
Unknown 29 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 90. 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 May 2020.
All research outputs
#449,247
of 24,594,795 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#356
of 7,984 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,999
of 341,421 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#8
of 76 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,594,795 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,984 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 341,421 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 76 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.