Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Archives
    • 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
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Archives
    • 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

Modifying Provider Vitamin D Screening Behavior in Primary Care

Nigel L. Rozario, Alica Sparling, Ryan Burns, Andrew McWilliams, Jennifer H. Brady, Marc Kowalkowski and Jason Roberge
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine March 2020, 33 (2) 252-261; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2020.02.190323
Nigel L. Rozario
From the Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC (NLR, AS, RB, MK, JR, AM); Atrium Health Departments of Internal Medicine and Pediatrics, Charlotte, NC (AM); Carolinas Physician Alliance, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC (JHB).
PhD, MS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alica Sparling
From the Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC (NLR, AS, RB, MK, JR, AM); Atrium Health Departments of Internal Medicine and Pediatrics, Charlotte, NC (AM); Carolinas Physician Alliance, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC (JHB).
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ryan Burns
From the Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC (NLR, AS, RB, MK, JR, AM); Atrium Health Departments of Internal Medicine and Pediatrics, Charlotte, NC (AM); Carolinas Physician Alliance, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC (JHB).
MS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Andrew McWilliams
From the Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC (NLR, AS, RB, MK, JR, AM); Atrium Health Departments of Internal Medicine and Pediatrics, Charlotte, NC (AM); Carolinas Physician Alliance, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC (JHB).
MD, MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jennifer H. Brady
From the Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC (NLR, AS, RB, MK, JR, AM); Atrium Health Departments of Internal Medicine and Pediatrics, Charlotte, NC (AM); Carolinas Physician Alliance, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC (JHB).
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Marc Kowalkowski
From the Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC (NLR, AS, RB, MK, JR, AM); Atrium Health Departments of Internal Medicine and Pediatrics, Charlotte, NC (AM); Carolinas Physician Alliance, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC (JHB).
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jason Roberge
From the Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC (NLR, AS, RB, MK, JR, AM); Atrium Health Departments of Internal Medicine and Pediatrics, Charlotte, NC (AM); Carolinas Physician Alliance, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC (JHB).
PhD, MPH
  • 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

Article Figures & Data

Figures

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

    Weekly vitamin D test order rates for primary care, comprised of family and internal medicine (Model 1). Abbreviations: EHR, Electronic health record.

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

    Weekly vitamin D test order rate for family medicine (Model 2). Abbreviation: EHR, Electronic health record.

  • Figure 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    Figure 3.

    Weekly vitamin D test order rate for internal medicine (Model 3). Abbreviation: EHR, Electronic health record.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1.

    Population Characteristics

     Pre-Interventions
    (Week 1–8)
    Interventions
    (Week 9–18)
    Post-Interventions
    (Week 19–26)
    Number of encounters175,115224,826187,565
    Family medicine visits63.2%62.4%62.3%
    Internal medicine visits36.8%37.6%37.7%
    Visits with MD72.5%73.8%73.3%
    Visits with PA13.9%13.2%13.0%
    Visits with NP13.5%12.9%13.4%
    Nonpreventive visits88.0%87.7%87.5%
    Preventive visits12.0%12.3%12.5%
    Patient age (Mean ± Std)55.2 ± 17.955.2 ± 17.655.1 ± 17.5
    Female60.7%60.8%60.7%
    Patient race: caucasian69.0%69.0%68.4%
    Patient race: African American20.0%19.6%19.8%
    • MD, medical doctor; NP, nurse practitioner; PA, physician assistant; Std, standard deviation.

    • View popup
    Table 2.

    Results: Effect of Interventions to Weekly Vitamin D Test Order Rates

    Pre-Intervention RateAbsolute Effect (95% CI)Relative Effect
    Model 1. all primary care 
    Effect of both interventions6.9%−1.74* (−2.31 to −1.16)−25.0%
    Post-intervention change in slope −0.06 (−0.18 to 0.06) 
    Model 2. family medicine
    Effect of both interventions5.1%−1.12* (−1.44 to −0.81)−21.8%
    Postintervention change in slope −0.08*† (−0.14 to −0.02)
    Model 3. internal medicine
    Effect of Education Memo9.9%−1.90* (−3.00 to −0.80)−19.2%
    Postintervention change in slope−0.04 (−0.26 to 0.18)
    Effect of Quick Order Screen Removal0.08 (−1.06 to 1.21)
    Postintervention change in slope−0.07 (−0.29 to 0.15) 
    • CI, Confidence interval.

    • ↵* Statistically significant at the 5% level.

    • † Cumulative estimated postintervention rate was 2.73% at week 26.

    • Relative Effect: Absolute Effect/Pre-intervention Order Rate.

    • View popup
    Table 3.

    Sub-Group Analysis by Specialty

    Family MedicineInternal Medicine
    FactorsPre-Intervention Order RateCombined Intervention Absolute Effect% Change*Pre-Intervention Order RateEducation Memo Absolute Effect% Change*
    Age, years      
    ≥655.36−1.18−22%†8.84−1.27−14%
    <655.04−1.11−22%10.61−2.35−22%
    Gender      
    Males2.98−0.91−31%†7.09−1.79−25%
    Females6.51−1.25−19%11.78−1.94−16%
    Race      
    Caucasian4.79−1.24−26%†9.87−1.84−19%
    African American5.18−0.97−19%9.2−2.13−23%
    Type of visit      
    Preventive12.77−3.45−27%26.83−6.69−25%
    Nonpreventive4.21−0.77−18%†7.41−1.25−17%
    Provider type      
    MD4.99−0.79−16%10.70−1.47−14%
    PA5.83−2.72−47%7.65−3.98−52%
    NP5.41−1.10−20%7.19−2.42−34%
    • MD, medical doctor; NP, nurse practitioner; PA, physician assistant.

    • ↵* % Change presented in this table are all statistically significant (p < 0.05).

    • ↵† Statistically significant post-intervention slope.

    • View popup
    Table 4.

    Cost Impact Analysis (Payor Perspective, Medicare Rate)

     FM (Model 2)IM (Model 3)
    Number of visits in 2018778,410575,181
    Estimated preintervention order rate5.139.88
    Estimated postintervention order rate2.737.98
    Impact on annualized vitamin D test orders
    Estimated orders if no intervention39,93256,828
    Estimated orders with the intervention21,25145,899
    Estimated orders prevented thanks to the intervention−18,682−10,928
    Impact on total cost of care
    Medicare payment per vitamin D test$35.82$35.82
    Cost savings−$669,183.51−$391,456.68
    Total cost savings from prevented vitamin D test orders−$1,060,640.19
    • FM, family medicine; IM, internal medicine.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of the American Board of Family  Medicine: 33 (2)
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine
Vol. 33, Issue 2
March/April 2020
  • 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.
Modifying Provider Vitamin D Screening Behavior in Primary Care
(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.
1 + 13 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Modifying Provider Vitamin D Screening Behavior in Primary Care
Nigel L. Rozario, Alica Sparling, Ryan Burns, Andrew McWilliams, Jennifer H. Brady, Marc Kowalkowski, Jason Roberge
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Mar 2020, 33 (2) 252-261; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2020.02.190323

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Modifying Provider Vitamin D Screening Behavior in Primary Care
Nigel L. Rozario, Alica Sparling, Ryan Burns, Andrew McWilliams, Jennifer H. Brady, Marc Kowalkowski, Jason Roberge
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Mar 2020, 33 (2) 252-261; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2020.02.190323
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

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

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Patterns of Clinical Care Subsequent to Nonindicated Vitamin D Testing in Primary Care
  • Yonder: Vitamin D screening, startups, social distancing, and world leaders on Twitter
  • Many Family Medicine Successful Interventions and Clinical Reviews for Common Illnesses
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Identifying and Addressing Social Determinants of Health with an Electronic Health Record
  • 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
Show more Original Research

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Electronic Mail
  • Health Policy
  • Interrupted Time Series Analysis
  • Population Health
  • Primary Health Care
  • Vitamin D

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