骨科医生和全科及家庭医生的病人就诊情况比较:2003-2004 年全国流动医疗护理调查的结果。

John C Licciardone
{"title":"骨科医生和全科及家庭医生的病人就诊情况比较:2003-2004 年全国流动医疗护理调查的结果。","authors":"John C Licciardone","doi":"10.1186/1750-4732-1-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Osteopathic philosophy is consistent with an emphasis on primary care and suggests that osteopathic physicians may have distinctive ways of interacting with their patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) was used to derive national estimates of utilization of osteopathic general and family medicine physicians during 2003 and 2004 and to examine the patient characteristics and physician-patient interactions of these osteopathic physicians. All analyses were performed using complex samples software to appropriately weigh outcomes according to the multistage probability sample design used in NAMCS and multivariate modeling was used to control for potential confounders.</p><p><strong>Results and discussion: </strong>When weighted according to the multistage probability sample design used, the 6939 patient visits studied represented an estimated 341.4 million patient visits to general and family medicine specialists in the United States, including 64.9 million (19%) visits to osteopathic physicians and 276.5 million (81%) visits to allopathic physicians. Osteopathic physicians were a major source of care in the Northeast (odds ratio [OR], 2.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.42-6.08), providing more than one-third of general and family medicine patient visits in this geographic region. Pediatric and young adult patients (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.45-0.91), Hispanics (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.40-1.00), and non-Black racial minority groups (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.18-0.82) were less likely to visit osteopathic physicians. There were no significant differences between osteopathic and allopathic physicians with regard to the time spent with patients, provision of five common preventive medicine counseling services, or a focus on preventive care during office visits.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Osteopathic physicians are a major source of general and family medicine care in the United States, particularly in the Northeast. However, pediatric and young adult patients, Hispanics, and non-Black racial minorities underutilize osteopathic physicians. There is little evidence to support a distinctive approach to physician-patient interactions among osteopathic physicians in general and family medicine, particularly with regard to time spent with patients and preventive medicine services.</p>","PeriodicalId":87450,"journal":{"name":"Osteopathic medicine and primary care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2007-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1805772/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A comparison of patient visits to osteopathic and allopathic general and family medicine physicians: results from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, 2003-2004.\",\"authors\":\"John C Licciardone\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/1750-4732-1-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Osteopathic philosophy is consistent with an emphasis on primary care and suggests that osteopathic physicians may have distinctive ways of interacting with their patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) was used to derive national estimates of utilization of osteopathic general and family medicine physicians during 2003 and 2004 and to examine the patient characteristics and physician-patient interactions of these osteopathic physicians. All analyses were performed using complex samples software to appropriately weigh outcomes according to the multistage probability sample design used in NAMCS and multivariate modeling was used to control for potential confounders.</p><p><strong>Results and discussion: </strong>When weighted according to the multistage probability sample design used, the 6939 patient visits studied represented an estimated 341.4 million patient visits to general and family medicine specialists in the United States, including 64.9 million (19%) visits to osteopathic physicians and 276.5 million (81%) visits to allopathic physicians. Osteopathic physicians were a major source of care in the Northeast (odds ratio [OR], 2.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.42-6.08), providing more than one-third of general and family medicine patient visits in this geographic region. Pediatric and young adult patients (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.45-0.91), Hispanics (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.40-1.00), and non-Black racial minority groups (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.18-0.82) were less likely to visit osteopathic physicians. There were no significant differences between osteopathic and allopathic physicians with regard to the time spent with patients, provision of five common preventive medicine counseling services, or a focus on preventive care during office visits.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Osteopathic physicians are a major source of general and family medicine care in the United States, particularly in the Northeast. However, pediatric and young adult patients, Hispanics, and non-Black racial minorities underutilize osteopathic physicians. There is little evidence to support a distinctive approach to physician-patient interactions among osteopathic physicians in general and family medicine, particularly with regard to time spent with patients and preventive medicine services.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":87450,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Osteopathic medicine and primary care\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2007-01-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1805772/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Osteopathic medicine and primary care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/1750-4732-1-2\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Osteopathic medicine and primary care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/1750-4732-1-2","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

背景:整骨疗法的理念与强调初级保健是一致的,这表明整骨疗法医生与病人的互动方式可能与众不同:方法:利用全国非住院医疗护理调查(NAMCS)得出 2003 年和 2004 年期间全国骨科全科和家庭医学医生的估计使用率,并研究这些骨科医生的患者特征和医患互动情况。所有分析均使用复杂样本软件进行,以便根据 NAMCS 使用的多阶段概率样本设计对结果进行适当加权,并使用多变量模型控制潜在的混杂因素:根据所使用的多阶段概率样本设计进行加权后,所研究的 6939 次患者就诊代表了美国约 3.414 亿次患者就诊于全科和家庭医学专科医生,其中 6490 万次(19%)就诊于骨科医生,2.765 亿次(81%)就诊于全科医生。骨科医生是东北部地区的主要医疗来源(几率比[OR],2.94;95% 置信区间[CI],1.42-6.08),该地区三分之一以上的全科和家庭医学患者就诊于骨科医生。儿科和年轻成人患者(OR,0.64;95% CI,0.45-0.91)、西班牙裔患者(OR,0.63;95% CI,0.40-1.00)和非黑人少数种族群体(OR,0.39;95% CI,0.18-0.82)就诊骨科医生的可能性较低。整骨疗法医生和对抗疗法医生在与患者共处的时间、提供五种常见的预防医学咨询服务或在诊疗过程中注重预防保健方面没有明显差异:整骨疗法医生是美国,尤其是东北部地区全科和家庭医疗服务的主要来源。然而,儿科和年轻成人患者、西班牙裔和非黑人少数族裔对骨科医生的利用率较低。几乎没有证据支持骨科医生在全科和家庭医学中采取独特的医患互动方式,尤其是在与患者共处的时间和预防医学服务方面。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A comparison of patient visits to osteopathic and allopathic general and family medicine physicians: results from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, 2003-2004.

Background: Osteopathic philosophy is consistent with an emphasis on primary care and suggests that osteopathic physicians may have distinctive ways of interacting with their patients.

Methods: The National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) was used to derive national estimates of utilization of osteopathic general and family medicine physicians during 2003 and 2004 and to examine the patient characteristics and physician-patient interactions of these osteopathic physicians. All analyses were performed using complex samples software to appropriately weigh outcomes according to the multistage probability sample design used in NAMCS and multivariate modeling was used to control for potential confounders.

Results and discussion: When weighted according to the multistage probability sample design used, the 6939 patient visits studied represented an estimated 341.4 million patient visits to general and family medicine specialists in the United States, including 64.9 million (19%) visits to osteopathic physicians and 276.5 million (81%) visits to allopathic physicians. Osteopathic physicians were a major source of care in the Northeast (odds ratio [OR], 2.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.42-6.08), providing more than one-third of general and family medicine patient visits in this geographic region. Pediatric and young adult patients (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.45-0.91), Hispanics (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.40-1.00), and non-Black racial minority groups (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.18-0.82) were less likely to visit osteopathic physicians. There were no significant differences between osteopathic and allopathic physicians with regard to the time spent with patients, provision of five common preventive medicine counseling services, or a focus on preventive care during office visits.

Conclusion: Osteopathic physicians are a major source of general and family medicine care in the United States, particularly in the Northeast. However, pediatric and young adult patients, Hispanics, and non-Black racial minorities underutilize osteopathic physicians. There is little evidence to support a distinctive approach to physician-patient interactions among osteopathic physicians in general and family medicine, particularly with regard to time spent with patients and preventive medicine services.

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
Treatment of specific macrovascular beds in patients with diabetes mellitus. Learning outcomes from a biomedical research course for second year osteopathic medical students. Efficacy of osteopathic manipulation as an adjunctive treatment for hospitalized patients with pneumonia: a randomized controlled trial. Osteopathic manipulative treatment for pneumonia. Osteopathic Medicine and Primary Care: one journal, two audiences.
×
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