BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The evolution of managed care is creating a need for feasible methods for clinical practices to perform community assessments. Since some types of clinically useful data are best obtained through a qualitative community assessment, practical methods of carrying out this type of assessment are needed. Such practical methods are also important for community-oriented primary care, an attractive model for the marriage of population perspectives and clinical primary care. METHODS: Using methods suitable for busy clinical practices, qualitative data useful for clinical purposes were collected either by mail surveys, telephone surveys, or during focus group discussions in a low-income community. Characteristics of data obtained through each method, together with the costs, advantages, and disadvantages of each approach, were examined. RESULTS: All three methods revealed similar themes in their responses, though the range and emotional content of the responses varied by approach. Clinically useful data were obtained, although the potential for sampling and response biases must be considered. Costs, primarily related to professional time, varied by as much as 50% among the methods examined; telephone surveys were the least expensive per enrolled subject. CONCLUSIONS: The methods tested are potentially feasible in busy practices. However, practices should clarify their objectives and resources prior to using these methods.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The evolution of managed care is creating a need for feasible methods for clinical practices to perform community assessments. Since some types of clinically useful data are best obtained through a qualitative community assessment, practical methods of carrying out this type of assessment are needed. Such practical methods are also important for community-oriented primary care, an attractive model for the marriage of population perspectives and clinical primary care. METHODS: Using methods suitable for busy clinical practices, qualitative data useful for clinical purposes were collected either by mail surveys, telephone surveys, or during focus group discussions in a low-income community. Characteristics of data obtained through each method, together with the costs, advantages, and disadvantages of each approach, were examined. RESULTS: All three methods revealed similar themes in their responses, though the range and emotional content of the responses varied by approach. Clinically useful data were obtained, although the potential for sampling and response biases must be considered. Costs, primarily related to professional time, varied by as much as 50% among the methods examined; telephone surveys were the least expensive per enrolled subject. CONCLUSIONS: The methods tested are potentially feasible in busy practices. However, practices should clarify their objectives and resources prior to using these methods.
Authors: Ellen B Rubinstein; William L Miller; Shawna V Hudson; Jenna Howard; Denalee O'Malley; Jennifer Tsui; Heather Sophia Lee; Alicja Bator; Benjamin F Crabtree Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2017-12-01 Impact factor: 21.873