Migraine care practices in primary care: results from a national US survey.

BACKGROUND: Primary care clinicians play a critical role in diagnosis and treatment of migraine, yet barriers exist. This national survey assessed barriers to diagnosis and treatment of migraine, preferred approaches to receiving migraine education, and familiarity with recent therapeutic innovations. METHODS: The survey was created by the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) and Eli Lilly and Company and distributed to a national sample through the AAFP National Research Network and affiliated PBRNs from mid-April through the end of May 2021. Initial analyses were descriptive statistics, ANOVAs, and Chi-Square tests. Individual and multivariate models were completed for: adult patients seen in a week; respondent years since residency; and adult patients with migraine seen in a week. RESULTS: Respondents who saw fewer patients were more likely to indicate unclear patient histories were a barrier to diagnosing. Respondents who saw more patients with migraine were more likely to indicate the priority of other comorbidities and insufficient time were barriers to diagnosing. Respondents who had been out of residency longer were more likely to change a treatment plan due to attack impact, quality of life, and medication cost. Respondents who had been out of residency shorter were more likely to prefer to learn from migraine/headache research scientists and use paper headache diaries. CONCLUSIONS: Results demonstrate differences in familiarity with migraine diagnosis and treatment options based on patients seen and years since residency. To maximise appropriate diagnosis within primary care, targeted efforts to increase familiarity and decrease barriers to migraine care should be implemented.

Family Medicine Research Is Not a Federal Priority.

Research in family medicine produces clinical information and improves care delivery, but it has yet to receive equitable federal investment. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the primary funder of medical research in the United States. In 2021, the NIH received $45 billion.1 Between 2017 and 2021, the NIH spent only 0.2% of its budget on family medicine research (Figure 1). Although other funding organizations exist, the NIH is the largest funder of biomedical research, and because it continues to undervalue family medicine research, its underinvestment impacts clinical care.

Relationships Matter: Primary Care Physicians and Usual Sources of Care.

There are benefits to having a primary care physician or a usual source of care. Adults with a primary care physician have higher rates of preventive care, have improved communication with their care team, and receive more attention to social needs.1-3 Yet, not all individuals have equitable access to a primary care physician. The overall percentage of U.S. patients who reported having a usual source of care declined from 84% in 2000 to 74% in 2019, with wide variations across states, patient race, and insurance status.

Measuring State-Level Racial Inequity in Severe Maternal Morbidity in the Medicaid Population.

OBJECTIVE: Severe maternal morbidity represents a "near miss" mortality and is an important measure of quality and safety. Racial inequity in maternal morbidity is stark and the reasons for this disparity are poorly understood. We aimed to identify states achieving racial equity in maternal morbidity in order to identify policies that may promote racial equity. METHODS: We analyzed Medicaid deliveries from 2008 to 2009 in a sample that included 28 states and the District of Columbia. This dataset included approximately 80% of all Medicaid enrollees and 90% of minority Medicaid enrollees in the US. We determined the Non-Hispanic Black/Non-Hispanic white SMMI rate ratio for each state and categorized the states into groups by rate ratio. We described demographic features of both the general population and study population for these groups of states. RESULTS: In a sample that included a total of 1,489,134 births, we found that no state/district is achieving equity in severe maternal morbidity. The severe maternal morbidity rate is higher for Non-Hispanic Black than Non-Hispanic white patients in every state included. With a rate ratio ranging from 1.14 to 2.66, there are varying degrees of inequity. States in the group with the most equitable maternal morbidity rates had less inequity across racial subgroups with respect to educational attainment and poverty. CONCLUSIONS: Identifying geographic areas with varying degrees of inequity may be key to identifying policies to promote equity. Socioecological disparities and inadequate access to care may be factors in racial inequity in maternal morbidity.

Distribution of Spanish-Speaking Family Physicians, 2013-2019.

Language concordance between physician and patient is important in providing high-quality care. Many counties in the United States have a disparity between the number of patients speaking Spanish and the number of family physicians who are able to provide care in Spanish. Family medicine training institutions should consider how to modify curricula and recruitment of medical students to meet the language needs of their local populations.

Comparable Quality Performance of Acute Low-Back Pain Care in Telemedicine and Office-Based Cohorts.

Introduction: Back pain is among the most common presentations in primary care offices. National organizations have standardized the appropriate use of imaging for acute low-back pain (LBP). The objective of this study was to evaluate the use of imaging in LBP between telemedicine and in-person clinical encounters. Methods: This retrospective cohort compared secondary data from 20,624 telemedicine and office encounters in a large nonprofit health system from July 1, 2019, to June 30, 2021. The proportion of patients aged 18-50 years who did not receive imaging for acute LBP (X-ray, computed tomography, or magnetic resonance imaging) within 28 days of the provider encounter was measured according to Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set specifications. Performance was compared across race, ethnicity, age, body mass index, overall risk score, and insurance type. Chi-squared tests determined significant differences between cohorts (p < 0.05). Results: Patients seen via telemedicine had significantly lower rates of imaging within 28 days of their physician encounter (office: 16.32%, telemedicine: 11.20%; difference: 5.12%; p < 0.01). This was consistent across racial, ethnic, and risk score subgroups. Discussion: For practices and health systems, telemedicine might be a higher value approach for initial evaluation of acute LBP in primary care. For policy makers, telemedicine can save on health care costs without negatively impacting quality performance measures. Conclusions: Telemedicine is unlikely to compromise quality of acute LBP care, supporting this virtual space as an alternative care venue. The most beneficial use of telemedicine might be triaging initial encounters of acute LBP in primary care. Stronger evidence could support its long-term potential for driving value through cost savings.

Primary Care's Historic Role in Vaccination and Potential Role in COVID-19 Immunization Programs.

PURPOSE: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic recovery will require a broad and coordinated effort for infection testing, immunity determination, and vaccination. With the advent of several COVID-19 vaccines, the dissemination and delivery of COVID-19 immunization across the nation is of concern. Previous immunization delivery patterns may reveal important components of a comprehensive and sustainable effort to immunize everyone in the nation. METHODS: The delivery of vaccinations were enumerated by provider type using 2017 Medicare Part B Fee-For-Service data and the 2013-2017 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. The delivery of these services was examined at the service, physician, and visit level. RESULTS: In 2017 Medicare Part B Fee-For-Service, primary care physicians provided the largest share of services for vaccinations (46%), followed closely by mass immunizers (45%), then nurse practitioners/physician assistants (NP/PAs) (5%). The Medical Expenditure Panel Survey showed that primary care physicians provided most clinical visits for vaccination (54% of all visits). CONCLUSIONS: Primary care physicians have played a crucial role in delivery of vaccinations to the US population, including the elderly, between 2012-2017. These findings indicate primary care practices may be a crucial element of vaccine counseling and delivery in the upcoming COVID-19 recovery and immunization efforts in the United States.

Has Female Authorship in Family Medicine Research Evolved Over Time?

PURPOSE: Studies conducted in medical fields other than family medicine show that gender differences in publication rates are pronounced in many, but not all, fields of medicine. Our objective was to assess possible gender differences in publication rates in family medicine journals. METHODS: Using MEDLINE, we collected information on all journal articles published in 3 family medicine journals in the United States (Family Medicine, Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, and Annals of Family Medicine) during the period 2008 to 2017. Gender of first and last author for each article was assigned using first names. The gender breakdown of the editorial boards during this time period was also examined. RESULTS: For the 3 journals combined during the period 2008 to 2017, 46.1% (1,209/2,623) of first authors were female, and 38.6% (857/2,223) of last authors were female. For all journals combined, there was a statistically significant increase in first authorship (43.2% in 2008 vs 52.1% in 2017; P<.001) and last authorship (28.8% in 2008 vs 41.8% in 2017; P <.001) over time. The editorial boards of the journals combined were 37.2% (279/749) female, and this did not increase significantly over the time period studied (35.5% in 2008 vs 39.2% in 2017; P=.49). CONCLUSIONS: Representation of female authors in family medicine journals is increasing, yet last authorship remains low, and there is variation between journals in terms of gender equity. Future studies can evaluate the reason for these differences and offer solutions to publications as they try to increase their female authorship.

Trends in the Gender Ratio of Authorship at the Robert Graham Center.

Gender disparities in medical publication have been demonstrated in several specialties. This descriptive bibliometric analysis aims to determine the gender ratio of scholarly authorship at the Robert Graham Center (RGC) over an 11-year period. We examined publications by RGC researchers and assessed first, second, and last author gender. Of 229 publications, 65.5% had a male first author and 34.5% had a female first author. Of the 217 publications with a last author, 13.4% had a female last author. This study aims to inform the broader discussion about authorship gender parity in academic medicine using a one-site case-study approach.