Impact of response bias in three surveys on primary care providers’ experiences with electronic health records

Author:

Hendrix Nathaniel12,Maisel Natalya3,Everson Jordan4ORCID,Patel Vaishali4,Bazemore Andrew12,Rotenstein Lisa S3,Holmgren A Jay3ORCID,Krist Alex H5,Adler-Milstein Julia3,Phillips Robert L12

Affiliation:

1. American Board of Family Medicine , Lexington, KY 40511, United States

2. Center for Professionalism and Value in Health Care , Washington, DC 20036, United States

3. Division of Clinical Informatics and Digital Transformation, University of California, San Francisco , San Francisco, CA 94117, United States

4. Department of Health and Human Services , Washington, DC 20201, United States

5. Family Medicine & Population Health, Virginia Commonwealth University , Richmond, VA 23219, United States

Abstract

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.

Funder

Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology

Department of Health and Human Services

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Reference25 articles.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3