Peter C. Smith

Lack of Impact of Direct-to-Consumer Advertising on the Physician-Patient Encounter in Primary Care: A SNOCAP Report

PURPOSE Direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) has increased tremendously during the past decade. Recent changes in the DTCA environment may have affected its impact on clinical encounters. Our objective was to determine the rate of patient medication inquiries and their influence on clinical encounters in primary care. METHODS Our methods consisted of a cross-sectional survey in the State Networks of Colorado Ambulatory Practices and Partners, a collaboration of 3 practice-based research networks. Clinicians completed a short patient encounter form after consecutive patient encounter for one-half or 1 full day. The main outcomes were the rate of inquiries, independent predictors of inquiries, and overall impact on clinical encounters. RESULTS One hundred sixty-eight clinicians in 22 practices completed forms after 1,647 patient encounters. In 58 encounters (3.5%), the patient inquired about a specific new prescription medication. Community health center patients made fewer inquiries than private practice patients (1.7% vs 7.2%, P<.001). Predictors of inquiries included taking 3 or more chronic medications and the clinician being female. Most clinicians reported the requested medication was not their first choice for treatment (62%), but it was prescribed in 53% of the cases. Physicians interpreted the overall impact on the visit as positive in 24% of visits, neutral in 66%, and negative in 10%. CONCLUSIONS Patient requests for prescription medication were uncommon overall, and even more so among patients in lower income groups. These requests were rarely perceived by clinicians as having a negative impact on the encounter. Future mixed methods studies should explore specific socioeconomic groups and reasons for clinicians’ willingness to prescribe these medications.

Card studies for observational research in practice.

PURPOSE Observational studies that collect patient-level survey data at the point-of-care are often called card studies. Card studies have been used to describe clinical problems, management, and outcomes in primary care for more than 30 years. In this article we describe 2 types of card studies and the methods for conducting them. METHODS We undertook a descriptive review of card studies conducted in 3 Colorado practice-based research networks and several other networks throughout the United States. We summarized experiences of the State Networks of Colorado Ambulatory Practices and Partners (SNOCAP). RESULTS Card studies can be designed to study specific conditions or care (clinicians complete a card when they encounter patients who meet inclusion criteria) and to determine trends and prevalence of conditions (clinicians complete a card on all patients seen during a period). Data can be collected from clinicians and patients and can be linked. CONCLUSIONS Card studies provide cross-sectional descriptive data about clinical care, knowledge and behavior, perception of care, and prevalence of conditions. Card studies remain a robust method for describing primary care.

Underinsurance in Primary Care: A Report from the State Networks of Colorado Ambulatory Practices and Partners (SNOCAP)

Background: There has been considerable focus on the uninsured from national and state levels. There are also many Americans who have health insurance but are unable to afford their recommended care and are considered underinsured. This purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence of underinsurance among patients seen in primary care clinics. Methods: Patients in 37 primary care practices in 3 practice-based research networks completed a survey to elicit the prevalence of underinsurance among those who had insurance for a full 12 months, including private insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid. Being underinsured was based on patients reporting the delay or omission of recommended care because of their inability to afford it. Results: Of those with insurance for a full year, 36.3% were underinsured. Of those who were underinsured, 50.2% felt that their health suffered because they could not afford recommended care, a rate similar among those who were uninsured. Conclusions: When evaluating underinsurance in primary care offices, using an experiential definition based on self-reports of patients about their inability to pay for recommended health care despite having insurance, the prevalence is quite high. It is important for the primary care physician to understand that a substantial percentage of their patients may not follow through with their recommendations because of cost, despite having insurance. This also has significant implications when considering health care reform, particularly considering that these patients reported that their health suffered at a rate equal to that of the uninsured.

Institutional Review Board Training for Community Practices: Advice from the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality Practice-Based Research Network Listserv

Human subject protection training is required for all research personnel regardless of funding source. This article summarizes recommendations from a discussion about ethics training for community personnel from the practice-based research network (PBRN) listserv sponsored by the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality PBRN Resource Center. PBRN projects can involve community providers and their staff as subjects of the research project or as collaborators with recruitment and data collection. Distinguishing between usual care and research procedures is important for determining if training is required of community-based personnel. The use of research assistants or practice facilitators to collect research-related information is one way of limiting practice involvement to usual care procedures, thereby allowing PBRNs to limit training to dedicated research staff. Key methodologies for human subject protection training of community practice staff include on-site lectures, online modules, videotapes, and paper-based training. Ultimately, a discussion by the PBRN researcher with his or her governing Institutional Review Board is recommended for finding acceptable strategies within a PBRN.