MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405776522 · doi:10.2196/64722

Electronic Health Record Use Patterns Among Well-Being Survey Responders and Nonresponders: Longitudinal Observational Study

2024· article· en· W4405776522 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Daniel Tawfik, Tait D. Shanafelt, Mohsen Bayati, Jochen Profit

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSurvey Methodology and Nonresponse
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality
KeywordsObservational studyPreprintHealth recordsElectronic health recordMedicineData scienceComputer scienceHealth careWorld Wide WebInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Physician surveys provide indispensable insights into physician experience, but the question of whether responders are representative can limit confidence in conclusions. Ubiquitously collected electronic health record (EHR) use data may improve understanding of the experiences of survey nonresponders in relation to responders, providing clues regarding their well-being. Objective: The aim of the study was to identify EHR use measures corresponding with physician survey responses and examine methods to estimate population-level survey results among physicians. Methods: This longitudinal observational study was conducted from 2019 through 2020 among academic and community primary care physicians. We quantified EHR use using vendor-derived and investigator-derived measures, quantified burnout symptoms using emotional exhaustion and interpersonal disengagement subscales of the Stanford Professional Fulfillment Index, and used an ensemble of response propensity-weighted penalized linear regressions to develop a burnout symptom prediction model. Results: Among 697 surveys from 477 physicians with a response rate of 80.5% (697/866), always responders were similar to nonresponders in gender (204/340, 60% vs 38/66, 58% women; P=.78) and age (median 50, IQR 40-60 years vs median 50, IQR 37.5-57.5 years; P=.88) but with higher clinical workload (median 121.5, IQR 58.5-184 vs median 34.5, IQR 0-115 appointments; P<.001), efficiency (median 5.2, IQR 4.0-6.2 vs median 4.3, IQR 0-5.6; P<.001), and proficiency (median 7.0, IQR 5.4-8.5 vs median 3.1, IQR 0-6.3; P<.001). Survey response status prediction showed an out-of-sample area under the receiver operating characteristics curve of 0.88 (95% CI 0.77-0.91). Burnout symptom prediction showed an out-of-sample area under the receiver operating characteristics curve of 0.63 (95% CI 0.57-0.70). The predicted burnout prevalence among nonresponders was 52%, higher than the observed prevalence of 28% among responders, resulting in an estimated population burnout prevalence of 31%. Conclusions: EHR use measures showed limited utility for predicting burnout symptoms but allowed discrimination between responders and nonresponders. These measures may enable qualitative interpretations of the effects of nonresponders and may inform survey response maximization efforts.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.299
GPT teacher head0.478
Teacher spread0.179 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicSurvey Methodology and NonresponseFrench-language works237,207