The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The “Top 5” Lists in Primary Care: Meeting the Responsibility of Professionalism
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physicians can adhere to the principles of professionalism by practicing high-quality, evidence-based care and advocating for just and cost-effective distribution of finite clinical resources. To promote these principles, the National Physicians Alliance (NPA) initiated a project titled "Promoting Good Stewardship in Clinical Practice" that aimed to develop a list of the top 5 activities in family medicine, internal medicine, and pediatrics where the quality of care could be improved. METHODS: Working groups of NPA members in each of the 3 primary care specialties agreed that an ideal activity would be one that was common in primary care practice, that was strongly supported by the evidence, and that would lead to significant health benefits and reduce risks, harms, and costs. A modification of nominal group process was used to generate a preliminary list of activities. A first round of field testing was conducted with 83 primary care physicians, and a second round of field testing with an additional 172 physicians. RESULTS: The first round of field testing resulted in 1 activity being deleted from the family medicine list. Support for the remaining activities was strong. The second round of field testing showed strong support for all activities. The family medicine and internal medicine groups independently selected 3 activities that were the same, so the final lists reflect 12 unique activities that could improve clinical care. CONCLUSIONS: Physician panels in the primary care specialties of family medicine, internal medicine, and pediatrics identified common clinical activities that could lead to higher quality care and better use of finite clinical resources. Field testing showed support among physicians for the evidence supporting the activities, the potential positive impact on medical care quality and cost, and the ease with which the activities could be performed. We recommend that these "Top 5" lists of activities be implemented in primary care practice across the United States.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Choosing Wisely: Helping Physicians and Patients Make Smart Decisions About Their Care
Cassel, C. K. (2012) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2012.476 · Cited by 935
Clinical Care and Health Disparities
Starfield, B., Gérvas, J., & Mangin, D. (2012) · Annual Review of Public Health · doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031811-124528 · Cited by 76
Over-testing: Why More Is Not Better
Greenberg, J., & Green, J. B. (2014) · The American Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2013.10.024 · Cited by 52
Cervical Cancer Screening Among Young Adult Women in the United States
Roland, K. B., Benard, V. B., Soman, A., Breen, N., Kepka, D., & Saraiya, M. (2013) · Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention · doi:10.1158/1055-9965.epi-12-1266 · Cited by 30
Metadata
- Venue
- Archives of Internal Medicine
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2011-08-08
- Volume
- 171
- Issue
- 15
- Pages
- 1385
- ISSN
- 0003-9926 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2599120521
- Cited by
- 172
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 41.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The “Top 5” Lists in Primary Care: Meeting the Responsibility of Professionalism. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archinternmed.2011.231
- The paper
- The “Top 5” Lists in Primary Care: Meeting the Responsibility of Professionalism. (2011). Archives of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2011.231
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.