↓ Skip to main content

Electronic health record tools to assist with children’s insurance coverage: a mixed methods study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
81 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Electronic health record tools to assist with children’s insurance coverage: a mixed methods study
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12913-018-3159-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jennifer E. DeVoe, Megan Hoopes, Christine A. Nelson, Deborah J. Cohen, Aleksandra Sumic, Jennifer Hall, Heather Angier, Miguel Marino, Jean P. O’Malley, Rachel Gold

Abstract

Children with health insurance have increased access to healthcare and receive higher quality care. However, despite recent initiatives expanding children's coverage, many remain uninsured. New technologies present opportunities for helping clinics provide enrollment support for patients. We developed and tested electronic health record (EHR)-based tools to help clinics provide children's insurance assistance. We used mixed methods to understand tool adoption, and to assess impact of tool use on insurance coverage, healthcare utilization, and receipt of recommended care. We conducted intent-to-treat (ITT) analyses comparing pediatric patients in 4 intervention clinics (n = 15,024) to those at 4 matched control clinics (n = 12,227). We conducted effect-of-treatment-on-the-treated (ETOT) analyses comparing intervention clinic patients with tool use (n = 2240) to intervention clinic patients without tool use (n = 12,784). Tools were used for only 15% of eligible patients. Qualitative data indicated that tool adoption was limited by: (1) concurrent initiatives that duplicated the work associated with the tools, and (2) inability to obtain accurate insurance coverage data and end dates. The ITT analyses showed that intervention clinic patients had higher odds of gaining insurance coverage (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.32, 95% confidence interval [95%CI] 1.14-1.51) and lower odds of losing coverage (aOR = 0.77, 95%CI 0.68-0.88), compared to control clinic patients. Similarly, ETOT findings showed that intervention clinic patients with tool use had higher odds of gaining insurance (aOR = 1.83, 95%CI 1.64-2.04) and lower odds of losing coverage (aOR = 0.70, 95%CI 0.53-0.91), compared to patients without tool use. The ETOT analyses also showed higher rates of receipt of return visits, well-child visits, and several immunizations among patients for whom the tools were used. This pragmatic trial, the first to evaluate EHR-based insurance assistance tools, suggests that it is feasible to create and implement tools that help clinics provide insurance enrollment support to pediatric patients. While ITT findings were limited by low rates of tool use, ITT and ETOT findings suggest tool use was associated with better odds of gaining and keeping coverage. Further, ETOT findings suggest that use of such tools may positively impact healthcare utilization and quality of pediatric care. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02298361 ; retrospectively registered on November 5, 2014.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 81 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 11%
Student > Bachelor 9 11%
Student > Master 8 10%
Unspecified 4 5%
Student > Postgraduate 4 5%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 36 44%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 14 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 12%
Unspecified 4 5%
Engineering 4 5%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Other 10 12%
Unknown 36 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 May 2018.
All research outputs
#17,950,284
of 23,049,027 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#6,367
of 7,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,358
of 326,022 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#178
of 212 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,049,027 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,721 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 326,022 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 212 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.