The Milbank Memorial Fund is an endowed operating foundation that publishes The Milbank Quarterly, commissions projects, and convenes state health policy decision makers on issues they identify as important to population health.
We focus on a number of topic areas identified by state health policy leaders as important to population health.
The Center for Evidence-based Policy at Oregon Health & Science University is a national leader in evidence-based decision making and policy design.
Keep up with news and updates from the Milbank Memorial Fund. Get the latest from thought leaders, including Christopher F. Koller, president of the Fund.
We publish The Milbank Quarterly, as well as reports and issues briefs on topics important to population health.
March 2016 (Volume 94)
March 2016 | Paula M. Lantz, W. Douglas Evans, Holly Mead, Carmen Alvarez, Lisa Stewart | Original Investigation
Context: Both the underuse and overuse of clinical preventive services are a serious public health problem. The goal of our study was to produce population-based national data that could assist in the design of communication strategies to increase knowledge of and positive attitudes toward evidence-based guidelines for clinical preventive services (including the US Preventive Services Task Force, USPSTF) and to reduce uncertainty among patients when guidelines change or are controversial.
Methods: In late 2013 we implemented an Internet-based survey of a nationally representative sample of 2,529 adults via KnowledgePanel, a probability-based survey panel of approximately 60,000 adults, statistically representative of the US noninstitutionalized population. African Americans, Hispanics, and those with less than a high school education were oversampled. We then conducted descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regression analysis to identify the prevalence of and sociodemographic characteristics associated with key knowledge and attitudinal variables.
Findings: While 36.4% of adults reported knowing that the Affordable Care Act requires insurance companies to cover proven preventive services without cost sharing, only 7.7% had heard of the USPSTF. Approximately 1 in 3 (32.6%) reported trusting that a government task force would make fair guidelines for preventive services, and 38.2% believed that the government uses guidelines to ration health care. Most of the respondents endorsed the notion that research/scientific evidence and expert medical opinion are important for the creation of guidelines and that clinicians should follow guidelines based on evidence. But when presented with patient vignettes in which a physician made a guideline-based recommendation against a cancer-screening test, less than 10% believed that this recommendation alone, without further dialogue and/or the patient’s own research, was sufficient to make such a decision.
Conclusions: Given these demonstrated low levels of knowledge and mistrust regarding guidelines, coupled with a strong preference for shared decision making, better consumer education and decision supports for evidence-based guidelines for clinical preventive services are greatly needed.
Author(s): Paula M. Lantz, W. Douglas Evans, Holly Mead, Carmen Alvarez, and Lisa Stewart
Keywords: clinical preventive services, patient engagement, evidence-based guidelines, survey research
Download the study
Read on Wiley Online Library
Volume 94, Issue 1 (pages 51–76)
Published in 2016
Differing Strategies to Meet Information-Sharing Needs: Publicly Supported Community Health Information Exchanges Versus Health Systems’ Enterprise Health Information Exchanges