我们应该如何选择卫生专业人员进行研究?

Outcomes management Pub Date : 2003-07-01
Rajiv Verma, Douglas A Corley
{"title":"我们应该如何选择卫生专业人员进行研究?","authors":"Rajiv Verma,&nbsp;Douglas A Corley","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The investigation of healthcare professionals' practice patterns has increased sharply, in part driven by the development of practice guidelines; however, the optimal way to select providers is not known. We evaluated three distinct sources of physician specialists for completeness and potential biases. Professional society directories, which are frequently used to identify providers, provided biased populations. A national registry, the American Medical Association master file, produced the most comprehensive, least-biased single source.</p>","PeriodicalId":83840,"journal":{"name":"Outcomes management","volume":"7 3","pages":"129-33"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How should we select health professionals for studies?\",\"authors\":\"Rajiv Verma,&nbsp;Douglas A Corley\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The investigation of healthcare professionals' practice patterns has increased sharply, in part driven by the development of practice guidelines; however, the optimal way to select providers is not known. We evaluated three distinct sources of physician specialists for completeness and potential biases. Professional society directories, which are frequently used to identify providers, provided biased populations. A national registry, the American Medical Association master file, produced the most comprehensive, least-biased single source.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":83840,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Outcomes management\",\"volume\":\"7 3\",\"pages\":\"129-33\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2003-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Outcomes management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Outcomes management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

对医疗保健专业人员的实践模式的调查急剧增加,部分原因是实践指南的发展;然而,选择供应商的最佳方式尚不清楚。我们评估了三个不同来源的医师专家的完整性和潜在的偏差。经常用于确定提供者的专业协会目录提供了有偏见的人群。美国医学协会的主档案是一个全国性的登记机构,它提供了最全面、偏见最小的单一来源。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
How should we select health professionals for studies?

The investigation of healthcare professionals' practice patterns has increased sharply, in part driven by the development of practice guidelines; however, the optimal way to select providers is not known. We evaluated three distinct sources of physician specialists for completeness and potential biases. Professional society directories, which are frequently used to identify providers, provided biased populations. A national registry, the American Medical Association master file, produced the most comprehensive, least-biased single source.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Postdischarge outcome rates influenced by comorbidity and interdisciplinary collaboration. Hospitalized elders: changes in functional and mental status. Academic nurse-managed centers: approaches to evaluation. Leading and succeeding in outcomes management. Symptom management intervention in elderly coronary artery bypass graft patients.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1