Clinical practice characteristics of osteopathic and allopathic primary care physicians at academic health centers: Results from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey

Academic Medicine

Volumn 84, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 744-750

  Licciardone, John C ^a,b   Clearfield, Michael B ^c   Guillory, V James ^d  

^a Osteopathic Research Center   (United States)

^b University of North Texas Health Science Center   (United States)

^c Touro University California   (United States)

^d KANSAS CITY UNIVERSITY OF MEDICINE AND BIOSCIENCES   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ALLOPATHY; AMBULATORY CARE; ARTICLE; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DATA BASE; DEMOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; FEMALE; HEALTH CENTER; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL CARE; MEDICAL EDUCATION; OSTEOPATHIC MEDICINE; PATIENT CARE; PHYSICIAN; PRIMARY MEDICAL CARE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; AGE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; EPIDEMIOLOGY; GENERAL PRACTITIONER; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT SATISFACTION; RISK; RISK ASSESSMENT; SEX DIFFERENCE; STANDARD; STATISTICS; UNITED STATES; UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL; UTILIZATION REVIEW;

ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTERS; ADULT; AGE FACTORS; AGED; AMBULATORY CARE; CONFIDENCE INTERVALS; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE SURVEYS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; ODDS RATIO; OFFICE VISITS; OSTEOPATHIC PHYSICIANS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PATIENT SATISFACTION; PHYSICIAN'S PRACTICE PATTERNS; PHYSICIAN-PATIENT RELATIONS; PHYSICIANS, FAMILY; RISK ASSESSMENT; SEX FACTORS; UNITED STATES; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 67649871442     PISSN: 10402446     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181a424fc     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Gevitz N. Sectarian medicine. JAMA. 1987; 257:1636-1640.
2. Eckberg DL. The dilemma of osteopathic physicians and the rationalization of medical practice. Soc Sci Med. 1987;25:1111-1120.
3. Meyer CT, Price A. The crisis in osteopathic medicine. Acad Med. 1992;67:810-816.
4. Gevitz N. 'Parallel and distinctive': The philosophic pathway for reform in osteopathic medical education. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 1994;94:328-332.
5. Gevitz N. Center or periphery? The future of osteopathic principles and practices. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2006;106:121-129.
6. American Osteopathic Association. Fact Sheet 2006. Available at: (http://www.osteopathic. org/pdf/ost-factsheet.pdf). Accessed February 17, 2009.
7. Licciardone JC. A comparison of patient visits to osteopathic and allopathic general and family medicine physicians: Results from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, 2003-2004. Osteopath Med Prim Care. 2007;1:2.
8. Johnson SM, Kurtz ME. Diminished use of osteopathic manipulative treatment and its impact on the uniqueness of the osteopathic profession. Acad Med. 2001;76:821-828.
9. Goldstein M. A challenge to the profession: Initiate evidence-based osteopathic medicine now. J AmOsteopath Assoc. 1997;97:448, 451.
10. Licciardone JC, Brimhall AK, King LN. Osteopathic manipulative treatment for low back pain: A systematic review and metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2005;6:43.
11. Johnson SM, Kurtz ME. Perceptions of philosophic and practice differences between U.S. osteopathic physicians and their allopathic counterparts. Soc Sci Med. 2002; 55:2141-2148.
12. Sun C, Desai GJ, Pucci DS, Jew S. Musculoskeletal disorders: Does the osteopathic medical profession demonstrate its unique and distinctive characteristics? J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2004;104:149-155.
13. Carey TS, Motyka TM, Garrett JM, Keller RB. Do osteopathic physicians differ in patient interaction from allopathic physicians? An empirically derived approach. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2003;103:313-318.
14. Licciardone JC, Herron KM. Characteristics, satisfaction, and perceptions of patients receiving ambulatory healthcare from osteopathic physicians: A comparative national survey. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2001; 101:374-385.
15. Tenney JB, White KL, Williamson JW. National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: Background and Methodology. Volume Series 2, No.61. Hyattsville, Md: National Center for Health Statistics; 1974.
16. National Center for Health Statistics. 2002 NAMCS Micro-Data File Documentation. Available at: (ftp://ftp.cdc.gov/pub/Health- Statistics/NCHS/ Dataset-Documentation/ NAMCS/doc02.pdf). Accessed February 17, 2009.
17. National Center for Health Statistics. 2003 NAMCS Micro-Data File Documentation. Available at: (ftp://ftp.cdc.gov/pub/Health- Statistics/NCHS/ Dataset-Documentation/ NAMCS/doc03.pdf). Accessed February 17, 2009.
18. National Center for Health Statistics. 2004 NAMCS Micro-Data File Documentation. Available at: (ftp://ftp.cdc.gov/pub/Health- Statistics/NCHS/ Dataset-Documentation/ NAMCS/doc04.pdf). Accessed February 17, 2009.
19. National Center for Health Statistics. 2005 NAMCS Micro-Data File Documentation. Available at: (ftp://ftp.cdc.gov/pub/Health- Statistics/NCHS/ Dataset-Documentation/ NAMCS/doc05.pdf). Accessed February 17, 2009.
20. National Center for Health Statistics. 2006 NAMCS Micro-Data File Documentation. Available at: (ftp://ftp.cdc.gov/pub/Health- Statistics/NCHS/ Dataset-Documentation/ NAMCS/doc06.pdf). Accessed August 21, 2008.
21. Siller AB, Tompkins L. The big four: analyzing complex sample survey data using SAS®, SPSS®, STATA®, and SUDAAN® (paper 172-31). In: Proceedings of the 31st Annual SAS® Users Group International Conference. Available at: (http://www2.sas. com/proceedings/sugi31/172-31.pdf). Accessed February 17, 2009.
22. Feldman AM, Greenhouse PK, Reis SE, Sevco MS. Academic cardiology division in the era of managed care. A paradigm for survival. Circulation. 1997;95:740-744.
23. Andersson GB, Lucente T, Davis AM, Kappler RE, Lipton JA, Leurgans S. A comparison of osteopathic spinal manipulation with standard care for patients with low back pain. N Engl J Med. 1999;341: 1426-1431. (Pubitemid 29513458)
24. Brotherton SE, Etzel SI. Graduate medical education, 2006-2007. JAMA. 2007;298:1081-1096.