A Comparison of Outcomes Resulting From Generalist vs Specialist Care for a Single Discrete Medical Condition

Gerald W. Smetana

131 citations0/0 files storedArchives of Internal Medicine

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Healthcare Systems and Technology Primary Care and Health Outcomes Chronic Disease Management Strategies

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Studies of clinical outcomes for generalist vs specialist care for diagnoses within a specialist's narrow domain have tended to favor specialty care. METHODS: A MEDLINE search from January 1, 1980, through April 1, 2005, and a hand search of retrieved bibliographies of English-language studies that compared generalist vs specialist care for individual patients with a single discrete medical condition were performed. Two reviewers determined eligibility for each study and abstracted data onto a standardized instrument. RESULTS: A total of 49 articles met our inclusion criteria: 24 studies favored specialty care, 13 found no difference in outcomes, 7 varied by individual outcome, 1 depended on physician experience, and 4 favored generalist care. Only 8 studies reported integration into health delivery systems, 4 considered physician experience, 3 documented information technology support, and 2 considered the impact of care management programs. Selection bias was adequately addressed in 58% of studies that favored specialty care and in 71% of studies that found no difference or favored generalist care (P = .52). Studies that favored specialty care were less likely to consider 4 key, potentially confounding physician or practice characteristics compared with studies that found no difference or favored generalist care (3% vs 15% of potential instances, respectively; P = .009). CONCLUSIONS: The literature regarding the influence of generalist vs specialist care on outcomes for patients with a single discrete condition suffers from important methodologic shortcomings. Further research is needed to inform health care policy as it pertains to the optimal role of generalists and specialists in the physician marketplace.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 131 citations exist upstream.

References

1984The Social Transformation of American Medicine 1993Geographic Variation in Expenditures for Physicians' Services in the United States 2002Primary Care, Self‐rated Health, and Reductions in Social Disparities in Health 2005The Effects Of Specialist Supply On Populations’ Health: Assessing The Evidence 1986Learning to Heal: The Development of American Medical Education 2001Generalist and Subspecialist Physicians' Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices Regarding Influenza and Pneumococcal Vaccinations for Elderly and Other High-Risk Patients 2005Primary Care, Social Inequalities, and All-Cause, Heart Disease, and Cancer Mortality in US Counties, 1990 1999Learning to Heal: The Development of American Medical Education

Cited by

2019Lack Of Access To Specialists Associated With Mortality And Preventable Hospitalizations Of Rural Medicare Beneficiaries 2019Barriers and facilitators for implementation of electronic consultations (eConsult) to enhance access to specialist care: a scoping review 2009Ambulatory Care Provided by Office-Based Specialists in the United States 2010Specialty Care and the Patient-Centered Medical Home

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.