Cited by 195Health Promotion and Cardiovascular PreventionPrimary Care and Health OutcomesGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening

When a Usual Source of Care and Usual Provider Matter: Adult Prevention and Screening Services

Open access
Blewett, Lynn A., Johnson, Pamela Jo, Lee, Brian, Scal, Peter B.·2008·Journal of General Internal Medicine

Abstract

Objective To examine whether the usual source of preventive care, (having a usual place for care only or the combination of a usual place and provider compared with no usual source of preventive care) is associated with adults receiving recommended screening and prevention services.Design Using cross-sectional survey data for 24,138 adults (ages 18-64) from the 1999 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), we estimated adjusted odds ratios using separate logistic regression models for receipt of five preventive services: influenza vaccine, Pap smear, mammogram, clinical breast exam, and prostate specific antigen.Results Having both a usual place and a usual provider was consistently associated with increased odds for receiving preventive care/screening services compared to having a place only or neither. Adults ages 50-64 with a usual place/provider had 2.8 times greater odds of receiving a past year flu shot compared with those who had neither. Men ages 50-64 with a usual place/provider had nearly 10 times higher odds of receiving a PSA test compared with men who had neither. Having a usual place/provider compared with having neither was associated with 3.9 times higher odds of clinical breast exam among women ages 20-64, 4.1 times higher odds of Pap testing among women ages 21-64, and 4.8 times higher odds of mammogram among women ages 40-64.Conclusions Having both a usual place and usual provider is a key variable in determining whether adults receive recommended screening and prevention services and should be considered a fundamental component of any medical home model for adults.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11606-008-0659-0

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Having a regular primary care provider, as opposed to only having a usual source of care or regular practice, is associated with more preventive care, better chronic disease and medication management, and improved access to care.

    “previous studies have found that having a regular primary care provider, as opposed to only having a usual source of care or regular practice, is associated with more preventive care [75, 76], better chronic disease and medication management [77], and improved access to care [3].”

    From Improved access to and continuity of primary care after attachment to a family physician: longitudinal cohort study on centralized waiting lists for unattached patients in Quebec, Canada (2022) · cites this paper as [75]

    For the preventive-care portion attributed to this paper, the Discussion (page not available) says adults with both a usual place and usual provider were more likely to receive recommended services than those with a usual place alone. The Introduction (page not available) cautions that the data could not establish whether the usual provider met primary-care characteristics, so the specifically ‘primary care provider’ wording is not fully supported. The other outcomes in the citing sentence have separate citations. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 11 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. StataCorp. Survey Data Reference Manual. College Station, TX: Stata Press; 2005.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Blewett, L. A., Johnson, P. J., Lee, B., & Scal, P. B.
Affiliations
University of Minnesota (US)
Corresponding author
Blewett, Lynn A.
Venue
Journal of General Internal Medicine
Published
2008-05-28
Volume
23
Issue
9
Pages
1354-1360
ISSN
  • 0884-8734 (ISSN-L)
  • 1525-1497
OpenAlex
W2002456609
Cited by
195
References
11
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 15
FWCI
5.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of General Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Minnesota
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (1-R01-HD046697-01, R01HD046697)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
Keywords
usual source of care, preventive medicine, cancer screening, influenza vaccination, Pap smear, mammography, clinical breast examination, prostate-specific antigen testing, patient-centered medical home, adult primary care, health care access
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Continuity of Patient Care, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Insurance, Health, Male, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Preventive Health Services, United States, Odds Ratio, Health Care Surveys

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