The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Unwarranted variations in healthcare delivery: implications for academic medical centres
Open accessAbstract
Everyday clinical practice is characterised by wide variations that cannot be explained by illness severity or patient preference. Professor Wennberg examines the causes for these variations and suggests ways to remedy the situation Academic medicine has had only limited success in improving the scientific basis of everyday clinical practice, even within the walls of its own hospitals. Patterns of practice among academic medical centres—as among other institutions—are often idiosyncratic and unscientific, and local medical opinion and local supply of resources are more important than science in determining how medical care is delivered. In short, after nearly 100 years of academic medicine as we know it, much of medicine in the United States remains empirical. The evaluative clinical sciences—those disciplines whose role in medicine is to evaluate medical theory, understand patient preferences, and improve systems—are capable of improving the scientific basis of clinical practice and warrant high priority in the national research agenda and full adoption into medical school curriculums. These sciences are essential to the development of organised healthcare systems in the 21st century, not least because they expose unwarranted variations in care and can be used to remedy them. #### Summary box I will begin with a summary of the facts of unwarranted variations in clinical practice, derived from the Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care project, a US national study of traditional (fee for service) Medicare. The atlas project reports on the rates of …
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
Helping Patients Decide: Ten Steps to Better Risk Communication
Fagerlin, A., Zikmund-Fisher, B. J., & Ubel, P. A. (2011) · JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/djr318 · Cited by 573
Undertreatment of Obese Women Receiving Breast Cancer Chemotherapy
Griggs, J. J., Sorbero, M. E. S., & Lyman, G. H. (2005) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.165.11.1267 · Cited by 289
Pillar Integration Process: A Joint Display Technique to Integrate Data in Mixed Methods Research
Johnson, R. E., Grove, A. L., & Clarke, A. (2019) · Journal of Mixed Methods Research · doi:10.1177/1558689817743108 · Cited by 272
Kahn, M. G., Raebel, M. A., Glanz, J. M., Riedlinger, K., & Steiner, J. F. (2012) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/mlr.0b013e318257dd67 · Cited by 260
Knops, A. M., Legemate, D. A., Goossens, A., Bossuyt, P. M. M., & Ubbink, D. T. (2013) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/sla.0b013e3182864fd6 · Cited by 231
Metadata
- Authors
- Wennberg, J. E.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2002-10-26
- Volume
- 325
- Issue
- 7370
- Pages
- 961-964
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W2021840359
- Cited by
- 812
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 36.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Unwarranted variations in healthcare delivery: implications for academic medical centres. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.325.7370.961
- The paper
- Wennberg, J. E. (2002). Unwarranted variations in healthcare delivery: implications for academic medical centres. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.325.7370.961
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.