2014
DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2014.02.130222
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Do Primary Care Patient Experiences Vary by Teaching versus Nonteaching Facility?

Abstract: Results: Approximately 70% of participants were female and >40% were Latino. The adjusted mean score for patient-reported access at teaching sites was 4.35; at nonteaching sites it was 5.14 (P ‫؍‬ .01). The total mean score for chronic disease was 4.02 for teaching sites and 3.79 for nonteaching sites (P ‫؍‬ .01).

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
15
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
1
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…8 It is well known that teaching sites care for more people who are minorities, less well educated, and either covered by Medicaid or uninsured-facts reinforced in this report. Less well known, however, is that the teaching sites had worse access scores yet better chronic disease management, including many characteristics considered patient-centered (such as patient activation, problem solving, and care coordination).…”
supporting
confidence: 49%
“…8 It is well known that teaching sites care for more people who are minorities, less well educated, and either covered by Medicaid or uninsured-facts reinforced in this report. Less well known, however, is that the teaching sites had worse access scores yet better chronic disease management, including many characteristics considered patient-centered (such as patient activation, problem solving, and care coordination).…”
supporting
confidence: 49%
“…This has been shown by previous studies and is often attributed to their urban location. 15,[32][33][34][35] This predominance of minorities and lower SES patients has been demonstrated M A N U S C R I P T…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 92%
“…; Carvajal et al. ). Second, the imputer and analyst differed, which could result in uncongeniality and biased multiple imputation analyses (Meng ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…To this end, we employed the single imputation “half‐scale rule” (Carvajal et al. ) and complete case analysis. The “half‐scale rule,” which has been used in some CAHPS analyses, calculates the scale with available completed items for respondents who are missing less than half of the items on a scale (Fayers and Machin ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation