↓ Skip to main content

Characteristics and Disparities among Primary Care Practices in the United States

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, December 2017
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 (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
21 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
Title
Characteristics and Disparities among Primary Care Practices in the United States
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, December 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11606-017-4239-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

David Michael Levine, Jeffrey A. Linder, Bruce E. Landon

Abstract

Despite new incentives for US primary care, concerns abound that patient-centered practice capabilities are lagging. Describe the practice structure, patient-centered capabilities, and payment relationships of US primary care practices; identify disparities in practice capabilities. Analysis of the 2015 Medical Organizations Survey (MOS), part of the nationally representative Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS). Practice-reported information from primary care practices of MEPS respondents who reported receiving primary care and made at least one visit in 2015 to that practice. Surveyed primary care practices (n = 4318; 77% response rate) providing primary care to 7161 individuals, representing 101,159,263 Americans. Practice structure (ownership and personnel); practice capabilities (certification as a patient-centered medical home [PCMH], electronic health record [EHR] use, and x-ray capability); and payment orientation (accountable care organization [ACO] and capitation). Independently owned practices served 55% of patients, hospital-owned practices served 19%, and nonprofit/government/academic-owned served 20%. Solo practices served 25% of patients and practices with 2-10 physicians served 53% of patients. Forty-one percent of patients were served by practices certified as PCMHs. Practices with EHRs cared for 90% of patients and could exchange secure messages with 78% of patients. Practices with in-office x-ray capability cared for 34% of patients. Practices participating in ACOs and capitation served 44% and 46% of patients, respectively. Primary care patients in the South, compared to the rest of the country, had less access to nearly all practice capabilities, including patient care coordination (adjusted difference, 13% [95% CI, 8-18]) and secure EHR messaging (adjusted difference, 6% [95% CI, 1-10]). Uninsured patients were less likely to be served at a practice that used an EHR (adjusted difference, 9% [95% CI, 2-16]). Participants' primary care practices were mostly independently owned, nearly always used EHRs (albeit of varying capability), and frequently participated in innovative payment arrangements for a portion of their patients. Patient practices in the South had fewer capabilities than the rest of the country.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 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 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 11%
Researcher 5 11%
Student > Master 3 7%
Professor 2 4%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 21 46%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 6 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 21 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. 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 10 January 2019.
All research outputs
#1,268,369
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#1,038
of 7,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,040
of 445,835 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#16
of 88 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 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 7,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 445,835 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 88 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.