Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Archives
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • Other Publications
    • abfm

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
American Board of Family Medicine
  • Other Publications
    • abfm
American Board of Family Medicine

American Board of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Archives
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • JABFM on Bluesky
  • JABFM On Facebook
  • JABFM On Twitter
  • JABFM On YouTube
Research ArticleOriginal Research

Physician Opinions about American Board of Family Medicine Self-Assessment Modules (2006–2016)

Mingliang Dai, Michael Hagen, Aimee R. Eden and Lars E. Peterson
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine January 2019, 32 (1) 79-88; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2019.01.170472
Mingliang Dai
From the American Board of Family Medicine, Lexington, KY (MD, MH, ARE, LEP); Department of Family Community Medicine, University of Kentucky, Lexington (MH, LEP).
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael Hagen
From the American Board of Family Medicine, Lexington, KY (MD, MH, ARE, LEP); Department of Family Community Medicine, University of Kentucky, Lexington (MH, LEP).
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Aimee R. Eden
From the American Board of Family Medicine, Lexington, KY (MD, MH, ARE, LEP); Department of Family Community Medicine, University of Kentucky, Lexington (MH, LEP).
PhD, MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lars E. Peterson
From the American Board of Family Medicine, Lexington, KY (MD, MH, ARE, LEP); Department of Family Community Medicine, University of Kentucky, Lexington (MH, LEP).
MD, PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Introduction: Maintenance of Certification (MOC) was implemented to help physicians remain current with evolving medical standards, but has been criticized for being irrelevant to practice. We assessed family physicians' (FPs') opinions about the content of American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM) self-assessment modules (SAMs).

Methods: We used ABFM administrative data from feedback surveys completed after each of the 16 SAMs from 2006 to 2016. FPs rated agreement with 2 statements—1) “Content is appropriate for my practice,” and 2) “Content was presented at an appropriate level”—on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). We calculated mean ratings of each statement by year and stratified by Knowledge Assessment (KA) and Clinical Simulation (CS) portions of the SAM. We plotted mean ratings by FPs' age at their first SAM completion and the total number of SAMs completed.

Results: SAMs were completed (n = 633,198) from 2006 to 2016 with 448,408 (71%) feedback surveys completed. The annual mean ratings of both statements varied little (less than 0.5) and were above 4.5 for all SAMs. CS ratings were consistently lower than KA ratings. FPs of all ages at first SAM provided similar ratings and agreement with content appropriateness increased with repeated exposure to SAMs.

Conclusion: Over 11 years, the content of ABFM SAMs was regarded by FPs as appropriate for practice and presented at an appropriate level. Continued monitoring of feedback is necessary to keep the content of MOC programs relevant for physicians' practice.

  • Certification
  • Family Physicians
  • Self-Assessment
  • Surveys and Questionnaires

The American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) approved a Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program in 2000 to provide a platform to continuously assess physicians' performance and currency with evolving medical evidence. ABMS set standards for MOC that allowed each member board to design a program to meet the needs of their Diplomates within a 4-part framework: professional standing (Part I), lifelong learning and self assessment (Part II), medical knowledge and skills (Part III), and improvement in practice (Part IV).1 However, these standards have sometimes triggered tensions between certifying boards and their Diplomates.2 Despite growing evidence linking MOC participation with improvement in patient care,3⇓⇓⇓⇓–8 opinions about MOC have been controversial and its value challenged.9⇓–11 Physician experiences with MOC have demonstrated both satisfaction,12⇓⇓–15 and dissatisfaction.16,17

The ABMS MOC Part II activities are intended to be relevant, easy-to-use, cost-effective, and meaningful for physicians.1 However, there is little evidence demonstrating whether these goals have been met. The American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM), as an ABMS member board, is able to offer insights regarding physician opinions about its MOC for Family Physicians (MC-FP) Part II activities, as a result of its long-standing business requirement of collecting feedback from Diplomates who complete a self-assessment module (SAM), which comprised a knowledge assessment (KA) and a clinical simulation (CS). Soon after their rollout in 2004, an early analysis of the ABFM feedback surveys indicated that most family physicians (FPs) had a favorable experience with SAMs,13 and a more recent analysis of over 320,000 feedback surveys of FPs who completed a SAM between 2004 and 2013 found that a large majority of participants rated their experience with SAMs as highly positive.18

As the potential scope of practice of FPs is very broad, it is important to determine whether the SAMs, which are focused on a specific clinical area, are providing knowledge that is appropriate for practice. Scope of practice often changes as FPs age and an internal ABFM analysis of 6 months of data found that older FPs rated KA more positively than CS compared with younger FPs.19 As a result, we hypothesized that older Diplomates may have found the CS difficult and been less satisfied than younger Diplomates. This study sought to evaluate FPs' opinions about ABFM SAMs and also to determine whether opinions differed between younger and older FPs.

Methods

Data

This study analyzed data from ABFM SAM feedback surveys completed between January 2006 and June 2016 before ABFM decoupled SAMs into independent Knowledge Self-Assessment (KSA) and Clinical Self-Assessment (CSA) activities.20 Until 2009, physicians were required to complete the surveys to receive Continuing Medical Education (CME) credits. After 2009, survey completion was optional.

During the period of the study, participants in MC-FP needed to complete 2 SAMs in a 3-year period to satisfy the lifelong learning requirement. Each SAM included 2 components: a 60-question Knowledge Assessment (KA) that focused on medical knowledge, and a Clinical Simulation (CS) to simulate a patient clinical encounter. To keep the SAMs current, ABFM adopted multiple strategies to update the content regularly.21 Diplomates had to answer 80% of the KA questions correctly before proceeding to the CS. After completing both SAM components, FPs were asked to evaluate the activities. For each KA and each CS, FPs were asked to rate how much they agreed with the following statements: 1) “Content is appropriate for my practice” and 2) “Content was presented at an appropriate level.” The number of SAM topics from which Diplomates could choose increased from 2 (Diabetes and Hypertension), at launch in 2004 to a selection of 16 topics by 2016. The 2 questions about content appropriateness were first asked in 2006 and remained unchanged in all 16 SAMs through 2016.

Measures

Statements of content appropriateness were rated on a numeric scale of 1 to 6 (from 1, strongly disagree to 6, strongly agree) for most SAMs. For the 4 SAMs (Pain Management, Well Child Care, Health Behavior, Maternity Care) that employed a rating scale of 1 to 4, we averaged the ratings using the raw scores and then weighted the mean ratings by a factor of 1.5 to align them with the 6-point scale. Mean ratings of the statements were used to measure FPs' opinions about content appropriateness of individual SAM KA/CS. Overall opinions about KA/CS were measured by aggregating mean ratings across all SAMs to KA/CS level. In addition, age at first SAM completion was used to establish cohorts of FPs aged under 40 years, 40 to 49 years, 50 to 59 years, and 60 years and older. Total number of SAMs completed during the study period was counted for each physician.

Analysis

We calculated the percentage of feedback surveys completed by SAM topic and by year. To test survey response bias, we examined whether respondents and nonrespondents differed in age, gender, medical degree (MD vs DO), and International Medical Graduate (IMG) status using data from 2015, the most recent year with a full year's data. We compared the differences within each SAM rather than across SAMs within in a calendar year because it became difficult to differentiate respondents from nonrespondents when a physician could complete multiple SAMs in a year but responded to any or none of the surveys. We examined mean ratings of content appropriateness for each SAM KA/CS topic over the years of its offering. Lastly, we investigated differences in overall opinions about content appropriateness of KA/CS by plotting the aggregated mean ratings against the total number of SAMs completed and by physician age cohort. The population of all SAM feedback surveys completed between 2006 and 2016 were available for analysis, mitigating the need for inferential statistical testing. Analyses were conducted using SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC) and Microsoft Excel. This study was approved by the American Academy of Family Physicians Institutional Review Board.

Results

Over the 11-year period, 448,408 feedback surveys (from 633,198 SAMs) were completed for a response rate of 71%. The number of SAMs completed each year by topic can be found in the Appendices. The response rates before 2009 were above 85% for the 10 SAMs that were available and, expectedly, declined after the requirement for CME credits was removed (Table 1). After reaching the lowest point in 2012 when only 56% of SAM feedback surveys were completed, the response rates started to increase. Of all the SAMs, the mean response rate was highest (77%) with the Asthma SAM and lowest with the Preventive Care SAM (59%) during the study period.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Response Rates to American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM) Self-Assessment Module (SAM) Feedback Surveys 2006 to 2016

Compared with nonrespondents, feedback survey respondents in 2015 were not significantly different in gender, medical degree, or IMG status for 10, 13, and 9 of the 16 SAMs respectively (see complete results in the Appendices). In contrast, the mean age was higher among respondents for all the 16 SAMs except for Diabetes (45.9 vs 45.4, P = .09) and Preventive Care SAMs (44.5 vs 45.1, P = .06). The largest mean age difference was 3.1 years (Mental Health, 43.2 vs 46.3, P < .0001).

Within individual KA modules, changes in ratings over the years were minimal (eg, the largest mean difference was 0.3 between any 2 years) and all the KAs were rated higher than 4.5 (of 6) (Tables 2 and 3). The mean ratings for “Content is appropriate for my practice” and “Content was presented at an appropriate level” were nearly identical. Across modules, some KAs (eg, Coronary Artery Disease and Cerebrovascular Disease) were rated slightly lower than others (eg, Diabetes or Hypertension). Nevertheless, the largest mean rating difference in any given year was less than 0.5. The overall pattern of the ratings within and across modules held in CSs (Tables 4 and 5). Compared with KAs of the same topic area, most CSs were rated lower but only by a magnitude of 0.1 to 0.2, with the exception of the Maternity Care and Childhood Illness CS's, whose content appropriateness was rated approximately one half point lower than their KA counterparts.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Ratings of Content Appropriateness of American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM) Self-Assessment Module (SAM) Knowledge Assessment (KA) from 2006 to 2016

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

Ratings of Content Appropriateness of American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM) Self-Assessment Module (SAM) Knowledge Assessment (KA) from 2006 to 2016

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 4.

Ratings of Content Appropriateness of American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM) Self-Assessment Module (SAM) Clinical Simulation (CS) from 2006 to 2016

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 5.

Ratings of Content Appropriateness of American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM) Self-Assessment Module (SAM) Clinical Simulation (CS) from 2006 to 2016

Figure 1 illustrates differences in FPs' opinions about overall content appropriateness by charting mean ratings on a continuum of increasing number of KAs completed, by age at first KA. Regardless of the topic area, we observed that the ratings were lowest among FPs who had completed 1 KA but increased as they completed more KAs over time (2006 to 2016). This trend applied to both younger and older FPs. Nevertheless, the ratings appeared to be higher among older FPs and lower among younger FPs. The corresponding trends of CSs closely mirrored those of KA (Figure 2). Nonetheless, ratings of content appropriateness of CS were lower than those of the KAs.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Figure 1.

Overall ratings of American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM) Self-Assessment Module (SAM) Knowledge Assessment (KA) content appropriateness by increasing numbers of modules completed and by age at first module completion.

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Figure 2.

Overall ratings of American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM) Self-Assessment Module (SAM) Clinical Simulation (CS) content appropriateness by increasing numbers of modules completed and by age at first module completion.

Discussion

Building on a decade's worth of Diplomate feedback, this study provides evidence that FPs generally value ABFM SAMs. Contrary to claims that MOC activities are irrelevant and unnecessary,9⇓–11 the content of all 16 SAM topics was regarded by most FPs to be appropriate for practice and presented at an appropriate level. The fairly stable ratings over the life cycle of each individual KA and CS further suggested that the ABFM's process for updating both components kept the content relevant to FPs' practice.21 As we found no evidence of large differences between responders and nonresponders and nearly 70% of completed SAMs had feedback surveys, these findings are representative of a majority of ABFM Diplomates.

Compared with FPs who completed fewer KAs or CSs, those who completed more activities tended to rate the content higher. That is, FPs' opinions about the content became more favorable as they engaged with more activities. Ensuring that the content continues to be relevant for practice is crucial for the success of MOC Part II activities, which are intended to serve as a lifelong learning platform for physicians. The consistently high ratings of content appropriateness over the past decade suggested that ABFM SAMs served their purpose well.

The lowest ratings reflected the opinions of those who completed fewer SAMs and were likely FPs who were newly introduced to MOC. This may imply that younger cohorts of FPs had different initial experiences with or expectations of SAMs specifically, and perhaps MOC in general. Therefore, listening to and addressing the concerns of physicians who just began their MOC journey may help boost participation and satisfaction over the long term. This finding also highlights the importance of continuing to monitor Diplomates' feedback. As a result of an analysis of these feedback survey data showing that most critiques of the SAM were associated with technical issues in the CS,18,22 in July 2016, the ABFM split the SAM into 2 independent activities: the KSA and the CSA. The function of soliciting FP feedback remains and will continue to assist the ABFM in evaluating the performance of its new KSA and CSA modules.19

Limitations

This study has several limitations. First, the rating scales were not uniform across all SAM topics. Although we aligned different scales to be comparable, the weighted mean ratings may have skewed physicians' opinions about SAM content that was originally rated on a scale of 1 to 4. Nevertheless, the rating patterns of these SAMs agreed with those SAMs on a scale of 1 to 6. Second, survey respondents tended to be older than nonrespondents which suggests a potential overestimation of the results as older FPs viewed SAMs more favorably than younger FPs. However, the age differences were small despite being statistically significant and would be unlikely to affect the main results in a significant way.

Conclusion

This study provides substantial evidence supporting the perceived value of ABFM SAMs to Diplomates. Over the past decade, Diplomates rated the content of ABFM SAMs as appropriate and presented at an appropriate level across 16 diverse clinical areas. Importantly, FPs who completed more SAMs tended to have more favorable opinions of the content than those who completed fewer. Continued monitoring of feedback will play a critical role in keeping the content of MOC programs relevant for physicians' practice.

Appendix

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Appendix 1.

Numbers of American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM) Self-Assessment Modules (SAM) completed from 2006 to 2016

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Appendix 2.

Demographic Differences between Self-Assessment Module (SAM) Feedback Survey Respondents and Non-Respondents in 2015

Notes

  • This article was externally peer reviewed.

  • Funding: none.

  • Conflict of interest: The authors are employees of the American Board of Family Medicine.

  • To see this article online, please go to: http://jabfm.org/content/32/1/79.full.

  • Received for publication December 22, 2017.
  • Revision received June 19, 2018.
  • Accepted for publication June 20, 2018.

References

  1. 1.↵
    American Board of Medical Specialties. Standards for the ABMS Program for Maintenance of Certification (MOC). 2014. Available from: https://www.abms.org/media/1109/standards-for-the-abms-program-for-moc-final.pdf.
  2. 2.↵
    1. Lawrence HC III.
    . Letter to Dr. Nora. 2017. http://www.medtees.com/content/SpSocMOCLetter.pdf. Accessed June 14, 2018.
  3. 3.↵
    1. Peterson LE,
    2. Blackburn BE,
    3. Puffer JC,
    4. Phillips RL Jr.
    . Family physicians' quality interventions and performance improvement through the ABFM diabetes performance in practice module. Ann Fam Med 2014;12:17–20.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Peterson LE,
    2. Blackburn B,
    3. Puffer JC,
    4. Phillips RL Jr.
    . Family Physicians' Quality Interventions and Performance Improvement for Hypertension through Maintenance of Certification. J Healthc Qual 2016;38:175–86.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Peterson LE,
    2. Blackburn B,
    3. Phillips RL,
    4. Puffer JC
    . Improving quality of care for diabetes through a maintenance of certification activity: family physicians' use of the chronic care model. J Contin Educ Health Prof 2014;34:47–55.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Galliher JM,
    2. Manning BK,
    3. Petterson SM,
    4. et al
    . Do professional development programs for Maintenance of Certification (MOC) affect quality of patient care? J Am Board Fam Med 2014;27:19–25.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. Elward K,
    2. Blackburn B,
    3. Peterson LE,
    4. Greenawald M,
    5. Hagen MD
    . Improving quality of care and guideline adherence for asthma through a group self-assessment module. J Am Board Fam Med 2014;27:391–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    American Board of Medical Specialty. MOC participation improves patient care, leads to advocacy efforts and practice transformation. 2015. Available from: http://www.abms.org/news-events/moc-participation-improves-patient-care-leads-to-advocacy-efforts-and-practice-transformation/.
  9. 9.↵
    1. Lipner RS,
    2. Hess BJ,
    3. Phillips RL Jr.
    . Specialty board certification in the United States: Issues and evidence. J Contin Educ Health Prof 2013;33 Suppl 1:S20–S35.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Hawkins RE,
    2. Lipner RS,
    3. Ham HP,
    4. Wagner R,
    5. Holmboe ES
    . American Board of Medical Specialties Maintenance of Certification: Theory and evidence regarding the current framework. J Contin Educ Health Prof 2013;33 Suppl 1:S7–S19.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Cook DA,
    2. Holmboe ES,
    3. Sorensen KJ,
    4. Berger RA,
    5. Wilkinson JM
    . Getting maintenance of certification to work: A grounded theory study of physicians' perceptions. JAMA Intern Med 2015;175:35–42.
    OpenUrl
  12. 12.↵
    1. Lipner RS,
    2. Bylsma WH,
    3. Arnold GK,
    4. Fortna GS,
    5. Tooker J,
    6. Cassel CK
    . Who is maintaining certification in internal medicine—And why? A national survey 10 years after initial certification. Ann Intern Med 2006;144:29–36.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Hagen MD,
    2. Ivins DJ,
    3. Puffer JC,
    4. et al
    . Maintenance of certification for family physicians (MC-FP) self assessment modules (SAMs): the first year. J Am Board Fam Med 2006;19:398–403.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    1. Holmboe ES,
    2. Lipner R,
    3. Greiner A
    . Assessing quality of care: Knowledge matters. JAMA 2008;299:338–40.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Peterson LE,
    2. Eden A,
    3. Cochrane A,
    4. Hagen M
    . Physician satisfaction with and practice changes resulting from American Board of Family Medicine Maintenance of Certification performance in practice modules. J Contin Educ Health Prof 2016;36:55–60.
    OpenUrl
  16. 16.↵
    1. Ackerman KG,
    2. Lee B,
    3. Kushner JA
    . Dissatisfaction with maintenance of certification in academic pediatrics. Pediatr Res 2016;79:240–2.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Teirstein PS
    . Boarded to death–Why maintenance of certification is bad for doctors and patients. N Engl J Med 2015;372:106–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Brooks EM,
    2. Gonzalez M,
    3. Eden AR,
    4. O'Neal J,
    5. Sabo RT,
    6. Etz RS
    . What Family Physicians really think of Maintenance of Certification Part II activities. J Contin Educ Health Prof 2017;37:223–9.
    OpenUrl
  19. 19.↵
    American Board of Family Medicine. KSA & CSA feedback survey: Results six weeks post-SAM split. Phoenix 2016;7. Available from: https://www.theabfm.org/about/newsletter2016december.pdf.
  20. 20.↵
    American Board of Family Medicine. Self-Assessment Module (SAM) separated into two activities. Phoenix 2016:3. Available from: https://www.theabfm.org/about/newsletter.aspx.
  21. 21.↵
    1. Hagen MD,
    2. Quan MA,
    3. Fain R,
    4. DeBord W
    . ABFM's self-assessment module (SAM) revision process. Ann Fam Med 2015;13:88–9.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  22. 22.↵
    1. Puffer JC
    . A message from the president of the American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM). J Am Board Fam Med 2016;29:815–6.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of the American Board of Family   Medicine: 32 (1)
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine
Vol. 32, Issue 1
January-February 2019
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Cover (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Board of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Physician Opinions about American Board of Family Medicine Self-Assessment Modules (2006–2016)
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Board of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Board of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
8 + 8 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Physician Opinions about American Board of Family Medicine Self-Assessment Modules (2006–2016)
Mingliang Dai, Michael Hagen, Aimee R. Eden, Lars E. Peterson
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Jan 2019, 32 (1) 79-88; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2019.01.170472

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Physician Opinions about American Board of Family Medicine Self-Assessment Modules (2006–2016)
Mingliang Dai, Michael Hagen, Aimee R. Eden, Lars E. Peterson
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Jan 2019, 32 (1) 79-88; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2019.01.170472
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusion
    • Appendix
    • Notes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Conversations, Communication and Counseling Are Key Family Medicine Tactics to Improve Patient Health
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Integrating Adverse Childhood Experiences and Social Risks Screening in Adult Primary Care
  • A Pilot Comparison of Clinical Data Collection Methods Using Paper, Electronic Health Record Prompt, and a Smartphone Application
  • Associations Between Modifiable Preconception Care Indicators and Pregnancy Outcomes
Show more Original Research

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Certification
  • Family Physicians
  • Self-Assessment
  • Surveys and Questionnaires

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Authors & Reviewers

  • Info For Authors
  • Info For Reviewers
  • Submit A Manuscript/Review

Other Services

  • Get Email Alerts
  • Classifieds
  • Reprints and Permissions

Other Resources

  • Forms
  • Contact Us
  • ABFM News

© 2025 American Board of Family Medicine

Powered by HighWire