Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Impact of response bias in three surveys on primary care providers' experiences with electronic health records.
Hendrix, Nathaniel; Maisel, Natalya; Everson, Jordan; Patel, Vaishali; Bazemore, Andrew; Rotenstein, Lisa S; Holmgren, A Jay; Krist, Alex H; Adler-Milstein, Julia; Phillips, Robert L.
Afiliação
  • Hendrix N; American Board of Family Medicine, Lexington, KY 40511, United States.
  • Maisel N; Center for Professionalism and Value in Health Care, Washington, DC 20036, United States.
  • Everson J; Division of Clinical Informatics and Digital Transformation, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94117, United States.
  • Patel V; Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC 20201, United States.
  • Bazemore A; Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC 20201, United States.
  • Rotenstein LS; American Board of Family Medicine, Lexington, KY 40511, United States.
  • Holmgren AJ; Center for Professionalism and Value in Health Care, Washington, DC 20036, United States.
  • Krist AH; Division of Clinical Informatics and Digital Transformation, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94117, United States.
  • Adler-Milstein J; Division of Clinical Informatics and Digital Transformation, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94117, United States.
  • Phillips RL; Family Medicine & Population Health, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA 23219, United States.
J Am Med Inform Assoc ; 31(8): 1754-1762, 2024 Aug 01.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38894620
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE:

To identify impacts of different survey methodologies assessing primary care physicians' (PCPs') experiences with electronic health records (EHRs), we compared three surveys the 2022 Continuous Certification Questionnaire (CCQ) from the American Board of Family Medicine, the 2022 University of California San Francisco (UCSF) Physician Health IT Survey, and the 2021 National Electronic Health Records Survey (NEHRS). MATERIALS AND

METHODS:

We evaluated differences between survey pairs using Rao-Scott corrected chi-square tests, which account for weighting.

RESULTS:

CCQ received 3991 responses from PCPs (100% response rate), UCSF received 1375 (3.6% response rate), and NEHRS received 858 (18.2% response rate). Substantial, statistically significant differences in demographics were detected across the surveys. CCQ respondents were younger and more likely to work in a health system; NEHRS respondents were more likely to work in private practice; and UCSF respondents disproportionately practiced in larger academic settings. Many EHR experience indicators were similar between CCQ and NEHRS, but CCQ respondents reported higher documentation burden.

DISCUSSION:

The UCSF approach is unlikely to supply reliable data. Significant demographic differences between CCQ and NEHRS raise response bias concerns, and while there were similarities in some reported EHR experiences, there were important, significant differences.

CONCLUSION:

Federal EHR policy monitoring and maintenance require reliable data. This test of existing and alternative sources suggest that diversified data sources are necessary to understand physicians' experiences with EHRs and interoperability. Comprehensive surveys administered by specialty boards have the potential to contribute to these efforts, since they are likely to be free of response bias.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Registros Eletrônicos de Saúde / Médicos de Atenção Primária Limite: Adult / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged País como assunto: America do norte Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Registros Eletrônicos de Saúde / Médicos de Atenção Primária Limite: Adult / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged País como assunto: America do norte Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article