High-performing physicians are more likely to participate in a research study: findings from a quality improvement study.
Cardiovascular Diseases
/ therapy
Databases, Factual
Delivery of Health Care
/ standards
Humans
Ontario
Physicians, Family
Practice Patterns, Physicians'
/ statistics & numerical data
Quality Improvement
Quality Indicators, Health Care
Quality of Health Care
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Regression Analysis
Universal Health Insurance
Primary care
Quality improvement
Research methods
Volunteer Bias
Journal
BMC medical research methodology
ISSN: 1471-2288
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Res Methodol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968545
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 08 2019
07 08 2019
Historique:
received:
05
06
2018
accepted:
18
07
2019
entrez:
8
8
2019
pubmed:
8
8
2019
medline:
11
6
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Participants in voluntary research present a different demographic profile than those who choose not to participate, affecting the generalizability of many studies. Efforts to evaluate these differences have faced challenges, as little information is available from non-participants. Leveraging data from a recent randomized controlled trial that used health administrative databases in a jurisdiction with universal medical coverage, we sought to compare the quality of care provided by participating and non-participating physicians prior to the program's implementation in order to assess whether participating physicians provided a higher baseline quality of care. We conducted clustered regression analyses of baseline data from provincial health administrative databases. Participants included all family physicians who were eligible to participate in the Improved Delivery of Cardiovascular Care (IDOCC) project, a quality improvement project rolled out in a geographically defined region in Ontario (Canada) between 2008 and 2011. We assessed 14 performance indicators representing measures of access, continuity, and recommended care for cancer screening and chronic disease management. In unadjusted and patient-adjusted models, patients of IDOCC-participating physicians had higher continuity scores at the provider (Odds Ratio (OR) [95% confidence interval]: 1.06 [1.03-1.09]) and practice (1.06 [1.04-1.08]) level, lower risk of emergency room visits (Rate Ratio (RR): 0.93 [0.88-0.97]) and hospitalizations (RR:0.87 [0.77-0.99]), and were more likely to have received recommended diabetes tests (OR: 1.25 [1.06-1.49]) and cancer screening for cervical cancer (OR: 1.32 [1.08-1.61] and breast cancer (OR: 1.32 [1.19-1.46]) than patients of non-participating physicians. Some indicators remained statistically significant in the model after adjusting for provider factors. Our study demonstrated a participation bias for several quality indicators. Physician characteristics can explain some of these differences. Other underlying physician or practice attributes also influence interest in participating in quality improvement initiatives and existing quality levels. The standard for addressing participation bias by controlling for basic physician and practice level variables is inadequate for ensuring that results are generalizable to primary care providers and practices.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Participants in voluntary research present a different demographic profile than those who choose not to participate, affecting the generalizability of many studies. Efforts to evaluate these differences have faced challenges, as little information is available from non-participants. Leveraging data from a recent randomized controlled trial that used health administrative databases in a jurisdiction with universal medical coverage, we sought to compare the quality of care provided by participating and non-participating physicians prior to the program's implementation in order to assess whether participating physicians provided a higher baseline quality of care.
METHODS
We conducted clustered regression analyses of baseline data from provincial health administrative databases. Participants included all family physicians who were eligible to participate in the Improved Delivery of Cardiovascular Care (IDOCC) project, a quality improvement project rolled out in a geographically defined region in Ontario (Canada) between 2008 and 2011. We assessed 14 performance indicators representing measures of access, continuity, and recommended care for cancer screening and chronic disease management.
RESULTS
In unadjusted and patient-adjusted models, patients of IDOCC-participating physicians had higher continuity scores at the provider (Odds Ratio (OR) [95% confidence interval]: 1.06 [1.03-1.09]) and practice (1.06 [1.04-1.08]) level, lower risk of emergency room visits (Rate Ratio (RR): 0.93 [0.88-0.97]) and hospitalizations (RR:0.87 [0.77-0.99]), and were more likely to have received recommended diabetes tests (OR: 1.25 [1.06-1.49]) and cancer screening for cervical cancer (OR: 1.32 [1.08-1.61] and breast cancer (OR: 1.32 [1.19-1.46]) than patients of non-participating physicians. Some indicators remained statistically significant in the model after adjusting for provider factors.
CONCLUSIONS
Our study demonstrated a participation bias for several quality indicators. Physician characteristics can explain some of these differences. Other underlying physician or practice attributes also influence interest in participating in quality improvement initiatives and existing quality levels. The standard for addressing participation bias by controlling for basic physician and practice level variables is inadequate for ensuring that results are generalizable to primary care providers and practices.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31387540
doi: 10.1186/s12874-019-0809-6
pii: 10.1186/s12874-019-0809-6
pmc: PMC6685269
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
171Références
CMAJ. 1999 Oct 19;161(8):965-70
pubmed: 10551192
Am J Prev Med. 2008 Nov;35(5 Suppl):S398-406
pubmed: 18929987
Med Care. 2009 Aug;47(8):924-8
pubmed: 19543122
Fam Pract. 1989 Sep;6(3):168-72
pubmed: 2792614
Implement Sci. 2015 Oct 28;10:150
pubmed: 26510577
Can Fam Physician. 2013 Jan;59(1):e11-8
pubmed: 23341674
CMAJ. 2015 Nov 17;187(17):E494-E502
pubmed: 26391722
Int J Qual Health Care. 2011 Oct;23(5):510-5
pubmed: 21586433
Health Care Anal. 2010 Mar;18(1):35-59
pubmed: 19172400
Qual Prim Care. 2009;17(5):303-5
pubmed: 20003715
Aging Clin Exp Res. 2005 Jun;17(3):236-45
pubmed: 16110738
Fam Pract. 2013 Feb;30(1):31-9
pubmed: 22936716
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2002 Oct;7(4):195-201
pubmed: 12425778
N Engl J Med. 1993 Aug 12;329(7):478-82
pubmed: 8332153
J Community Health. 2002 Apr;27(2):79-89
pubmed: 11936759
Eur J Cancer Prev. 2011 Jan;20 Suppl 1:S39-41
pubmed: 21245680
Cancer Causes Control. 2011 Sep;22(9):1277-87
pubmed: 21710193
Health Aff (Millwood). 2005 May-Jun;24(3):843-53
pubmed: 15886180
J Eval Clin Pract. 2004 Aug;10(3):375-86
pubmed: 15304138
Am J Med Qual. 2007 Jan-Feb;22(1):18-25
pubmed: 17227874
Implement Sci. 2011 Sep 27;6:110
pubmed: 21952084
BMJ. 2008 Jun 28;336(7659):1491-4
pubmed: 18577559
Med Care. 2016 Mar;54(3):277-86
pubmed: 26765146
CMAJ. 2013 Sep 3;185(12):E590-6
pubmed: 23877669
Eur J Heart Fail. 2009 Mar;11(3):299-303
pubmed: 19158153
J Med Internet Res. 2005 Sep 02;7(4):e48
pubmed: 16236700
Lancet. 2012 Jun 16;379(9833):2252-61
pubmed: 22683130
Ann Fam Med. 2016 Jan-Feb;14(1):26-33
pubmed: 26755780
Spat Spatiotemporal Epidemiol. 2011 Dec;2(4):311-9
pubmed: 22748229