An official website of the United States government
Association of Primary and Specialty Care Integration on Physician Communication and Cancer Screening in Safety-Net Clinics
ORIGINAL RESEARCH — Volume 17 — October 29, 2020
PEER REVIEWED
Figure.
Predicted probabilities of measures of CHC/specialist communication by tertile of CHC/specialist integration. We used 4 items related to CHC/specialist communication as dependent variables to indicate whether the CHC “often” or “always” 1) knew that a specialist visit happened, 2) knew the outcome of a specialty visit, 3) received clear recommendations on follow-up and care management after the specialist visit, and 4) received results or recommendations from the specialist in a timely manner. Each item was dichotomized according to the empirical distribution of responses (reference group combined responses of “never,” “rarely,” and “sometimes”). P values are for comparisons with the lowest tertile. Abbreviation: CHC, community health clinic.
| Item | Lowest Tertile of Integration, Predicted Probability, % (95% CI) | Middle Tertile of Integration, Predicted Probability, % (95% CI) [P Value]a | Highest Tertile of Integration, Predicted Probability, % (95% CI) [P Value]a |
|---|---|---|---|
| CHC received results/recommendations from specialist in a timely manner | 26.6 (16.9–36.4) | 32.9 (22.1–43.8) [.40] | 43.7 (31.8–55.7) [.03] |
| CHC received clear recommendations after specialist visit | 20.5 (11.7–29.3) | 36.1 (25.1–47.2) [.04] | 46.7 (35.0–58.3) [<.001] |
| CHC knew outcome of specialist visit | 41.7 (30.5–52.9) | 49.5 (38.1–60.9) [.34] | 64.6 (53.9–75.4) [.007] |
| CHC knew that specialist visit happened | 41.8 (30.5–53.1) | 54.6 (43.3–65.8) [.13] | 66.5 (55.8–77.2) [.004] |
The opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors’ affiliated institutions.