Provost Sylvie, Pérez José, Pineault Raynald, Borgès Da Silva Roxane, Tousignant Pierre
Direction de Santé Publique du Centre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et Services Sociaux du Centre-Est-de-l'Île-de-Montréal, 1301 rue Sherbrooke E., Montréal, QC, Canada H2L 1M3 ; Centre de Recherche du Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, 3480 rue Saint-Urbain, Hôtel-Dieu (Pavillon Masson), Montréal, QC, Canada H4W 1Y1 ; Institut de Recherche en Santé Publique de l'Université de Montréal, 7101 avenue du Parc, Montréal, QC, Canada H3N 1X9.
Direction de Santé Publique du Centre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et Services Sociaux du Centre-Est-de-l'Île-de-Montréal, 1301 rue Sherbrooke E., Montréal, QC, Canada H2L 1M3 ; Centre de Recherche du Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, 3480 rue Saint-Urbain, Hôtel-Dieu (Pavillon Masson), Montréal, QC, Canada H4W 1Y1.
Int J Family Med. 2015;2015:967230. doi: 10.1155/2015/967230. Epub 2015 Aug 27.
Background. Commonly self-reported questions in population health surveys, such as "do you have a family physician?", represent one of the best-known sources of information about patients' attachment to family physicians. Is it possible to find a proxy for this information in administrative data? Objective. To identify the type of patient attachment to a family physician using administrative data. Methods. Using physician fee-for-service database and patients enrolment registries (Quebec, Canada, 2008-2010), we developed a step-by-step algorithm including three dimensions of the physician-patient relationship: patient enrolment with a physician, complete annual medical examinations (CME), and concentration of visits to a physician. Results. 68.1% of users were attached to a family physician; for 34.4% of them, attachment was defined by enrolment with a physician, for 31.5%, by CME without enrolment, and, for 34.1%, by concentration of visits to a physician without enrolment or CME. Eight types of patient attachment were described. Conclusion. When compared to findings with survey data, our measure comes out as a solid conceptual framework to identify patient attachment to a family physician in administrative databases. This measure could be of great value for physician/patient-based cohort development and impact assessment of different types of patient attachment on health services utilization.
背景。在人群健康调查中常见的自我报告问题,如“你有家庭医生吗?”,是了解患者与家庭医生联系情况的最知名信息来源之一。是否有可能在行政数据中找到该信息的替代指标?目的。利用行政数据确定患者与家庭医生的联系类型。方法。使用医生按服务收费数据库和患者注册登记系统(加拿大魁北克,2008 - 2010年),我们开发了一种逐步算法,该算法包括医患关系的三个维度:患者向医生注册、完整年度体检(CME)以及就诊集中于某位医生。结果。68.1%的使用者与家庭医生有联系;其中,34.4%的联系是通过向医生注册来定义的,31.5%是通过未注册情况下的CME来定义的,34.1%是通过未注册或未进行CME情况下就诊集中于某位医生来定义的。描述了八种患者与医生的联系类型。结论。与调查数据的结果相比,我们的测量方法是一种可靠的概念框架,可用于在行政数据库中识别患者与家庭医生的联系。该测量方法对于基于医生/患者的队列研究以及评估不同类型的患者与医生联系对卫生服务利用的影响可能具有重要价值。