Phoenix Newsletter - October 2025 President’s Message: Enduring Commitments in a Time of Change Read President’s Message: Enduring Commitments in a Time of Change
Home Research Research Library How Is Family Medicine Engaging Patients at the Practice Level?: A National Sample of Family Physicians How Is Family Medicine Engaging Patients at the Practice Level?: A National Sample of Family Physicians 2018 Author(s) Sharma, A E, Knox, Margae, Peterson, Lars E, Willard-Grace, Rachel, Grumbach, Kevin, and Potter, M B Topic(s) Family Medicine Certification Keyword(s) Initial Certification Questionnaire Volume Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Source Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Introduction: Emerging policy consensus advocates that patient-centered care should include an active, practice-level patient role, but it is unknown how commonly these roles are implemented. We sought to understand current prevalence and predictors of practice-level patient engagement in US primary care settings. Methods: We assessed practice-level patient engagement by using 2016 American Board of Family Medicine Certification Examination registration data, restricted to ambulatory primary care site respondents randomly selected for a patient-centered medical home (PCMH) question module. Multivariate logistic regression models identified predictors of high-intensity patient engagement, defined as a patient advisory council or patient volunteers in quality improvement activities. Results: A total of 6900 examinees reported practicing in primary care sites; 1368 randomly received PCMH questions. Practice-level patient engagement included patient surveys (76.5%; 95% CI, 74.3–78.8%), patient suggestion boxes (52.9%; 95% CI, 50.2–55.5%), patient board of director memberships (18.8%; 95% CI, 16.7–20.9%), patient advisory councils (23.8%; 95% CI, 21.5–26.0%), and patient participation in quality improvement (20.5%; 95% CI, 18.3–22.6%). High-intensity patient engagement was reported by 31.1% (95% CI, 28.7–33.6%); predictors included large practice size (OR, 3.30; 95% CI, 1.96–5.57), serving more vulnerable patient populations, (OR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.18–2.84) and PCMH certification (OR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.62–2.97). Conclusions: Nearly one-third of physicians reported working in settings with high-intensity practice-level patient engagement. An implementation science approach should examine why high-intensity activities are more common in some practice settings and whether these activities add value through improved patient experience and health outcomes. ABFM Research Read all 1986 Defining the content of board certification examinations Go to Defining the content of board certification examinations 2008 Adding conversational interviews to a patient simulator Go to Adding conversational interviews to a patient simulator 2015 The Predictive Validity of the ABFM’s In-Training Examination Go to The Predictive Validity of the ABFM’s In-Training Examination 2011 ABFM’s Physicians Quality Reporting System registry Go to ABFM’s Physicians Quality Reporting System registry
Author(s) Sharma, A E, Knox, Margae, Peterson, Lars E, Willard-Grace, Rachel, Grumbach, Kevin, and Potter, M B Topic(s) Family Medicine Certification Keyword(s) Initial Certification Questionnaire Volume Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Source Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine
ABFM Research Read all 1986 Defining the content of board certification examinations Go to Defining the content of board certification examinations 2008 Adding conversational interviews to a patient simulator Go to Adding conversational interviews to a patient simulator 2015 The Predictive Validity of the ABFM’s In-Training Examination Go to The Predictive Validity of the ABFM’s In-Training Examination 2011 ABFM’s Physicians Quality Reporting System registry Go to ABFM’s Physicians Quality Reporting System registry
1986 Defining the content of board certification examinations Go to Defining the content of board certification examinations
2008 Adding conversational interviews to a patient simulator Go to Adding conversational interviews to a patient simulator
2015 The Predictive Validity of the ABFM’s In-Training Examination Go to The Predictive Validity of the ABFM’s In-Training Examination
2011 ABFM’s Physicians Quality Reporting System registry Go to ABFM’s Physicians Quality Reporting System registry