Mental Health Care Use by Ethnicity and Preferred Language in a National Cohort of Community Health Center Patients.

OBJECTIVE: Disparities in U.S. mental health care by race and ethnicity have long been documented. The authors sought to compare specialty mental health service use among non-Hispanic White, English-preferring Hispanic, and Spanish-preferring Hispanic patients who accessed care in community health centers (CHCs). METHODS: Retrospective electronic medical records data were extracted for patients ages ≥18 years who received care in 2012-2020 at a national CHC network. Zero-inflated Poisson regression models were used to estimate the likelihood of receiving mental health services, which was compared with expected annual rates of mental health service use. RESULTS: Of the 1,498,655 patients who received care at a CHC during the study, 14.4% (N=215,098) received any specialty mental health services. English- and Spanish-preferring Hispanic patients were less likely to have had a mental health visit (OR=0.69, 95% CI=0.61-0.77, and OR=0.65, 95% CI=0.54-0.78, respectively). Compared with non-Hispanic White patients, Spanish-preferring Hispanic patients had an estimated annualized rate of 0.59 (95% CI=0.46-0.76) mental health visits. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who were likely to receive specialty mental health services, Spanish-preferring patients had a significantly lower rate of mental health care use. Although overall access to mental health care is improving, unequal access to recurring specialty mental health care remains among patients who do not prefer to use English.

Postresidency Practice Setting and Clinical Care Features According to 3 Versus 4 Years of Training in Family Medicine: A Length of Training Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Factors associated with physician practice choice include residency location, training experiences, and financial incentives. How length of training affects practice setting and clinical care features postgraduation is unknown. METHODS: In this Length of Training Pilot (LoTP) study, we surveyed 366 graduates of 3-year (3YR) and 434 graduates of 4-year (4YR) programs 1 year after completion of training between 2013 and 2021. Variables assessed included reasons for practice setting choice, practice type, location, practice and community size, specialty mix, and clinical care delivery features (eg, integrated behavioral health, risk stratified care management). We compared different length of training models using χ2 or Fisher's exact tests for categorical variables and independent samples, and t test (unequal variances) for continuous variables. RESULTS: Response rates ranged from 50% to 88% for 3YR graduates and 68% to 95% for 4YR graduates. Scope of practice was a predominant reason for graduates choosing their eventual practice, and salary was a less likely reason for those completing 4 years versus 3 years of training (scope, 72% vs 55%, P=.001; salary, 15% vs 22%, P=.028). Community size, practice size, practice type, specialty mix, and practice in a federally designated underserved site did not differ between the two groups. We found no differences in patient-centered medical home features when comparing the practices of 3YR to 4YR graduates. CONCLUSIONS: Training length did not affect practice setting or practice features for graduates of LoTP programs. Future LoTP analyses will examine how length of training affects scope of practice and clinical preparedness, which may elucidate other elements associated with practice choice.

The Association Between Length of Training and Family Medicine Residents' Clinical Knowledge: A Report From the Length of Training Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The associations between training length and clinical knowledge are unknown. We compared family medicine in-training examination (ITE) scores among residents who trained in 3- versus 4-year programs and to national averages over time. METHODS: In this prospective case-control study, we compared the ITE scores of 318 consenting residents in 3-year programs to 243 who completed 4 years of training between 2013 through 2019. We obtained scores from the American Board of Family Medicine. The primary analyses involved comparing scores within each academic year according to length of training. We used multivariable linear mixed effects regression models adjusted for covariates. We performed simulation models to predict ITE scores after 4 years of training among residents who underwent only 3 years of training. RESULTS: At baseline postgraduate year-1 (PGY1), the estimated mean ITE scores were 408.5 for 4-year programs and 386.5 for 3-year programs, a 21.9 point difference (95% CI=10.1-33.8). At PGY2 and PGY3, 4-year programs scored 15.0 points higher and 15.6 points higher, respectively. When extrapolating an estimated mean ITE score for 3-year programs, 4-year programs would still score 29.4 points higher (95% CI=15.0-43.8). Our trend analysis revealed those in 4-year programs had a slightly lesser slope increase compared to 3-year programs in the first 2 years. Their drop-off in ITE scores is less steep in later years, though these differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: While we found significantly higher absolute ITE scores in 4 versus 3-year programs, these increases in PGY2, PGY3 and PGY4 may be due to initial differences in PGY1 scores. Additional research is needed to support a decision to change the length of family medicine training.

Resident Visit Productivity and Attitudes About Continuity According to 3 Versus 4 Years of Training in Family Medicine: A Length of Training Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Training models in the Length of Training Pilot (LOTP) vary. How innovations in training length affect patient visits and resident perceptions of continuity is unknown. METHODS: We analyzed resident in-person patient encounters (2013-2014 through 2018-2019) for each postgraduate year (PGY) and total visits at graduation derived from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education reports for each LOTP program. We collected data on residents' perceptions of continuity from annual surveys (2015-2019). We analyzed continuous variables using independent samples t tests with unequal variance and categorical variables using χ2 tests in comparing 3-year (3YR) versus 4-year (4YR) programs. RESULTS: PGY-1 and PGY-2 residents in 4YR programs saw statistically more patients than their counterparts in 3YR programs. In PGY3, 3YR program residents had statistically higher visit volume compared to 4YR program residents. Visits conducted in PGY4 ranged from 832 to 884. The additional year of training resulted in approximately 1,000 more total patient visits. Most residents in 3YR and 4YR programs rated their continuity clinic experience as somewhat or very adequate (range 86.3% to 93.7%), which did not statistically differ according to length of training. CONCLUSIONS: Resident visits were significantly different at each PGY level when comparing 3YR and 4YR programs in the LOTP and the additional year of training resulted in about 1,000 more total visits. Resident perspectives on the adequacy of their continuity clinic experience appeared to not be affected by length of training. Future research should explore how the volume of patient visits performed in residency affects scope of practice and clinical preparedness.