How to Be an Informed Consumer of Evidence Ratings: It's in the Details.

What are evidence-based strategies and how can public health practitioners find evidence without conducting extensive literature reviews? We developed an inventory of clearinghouses and other resources that disseminate research on evidence of effectiveness. We examined differences in evidence classification among 6 evidence clearinghouses that rate the effectiveness of community-level strategies to address determinants of health. Most evidence clearinghouses clearly defined their scope, but only a few clearinghouses explicitly defined the types of strategies they assess (eg, programs, policies, practices). The term "evidence-based" was widely used, but definitions and standards were inconsistent across organizations and disciplines. Evidence clearinghouses varied in the way they used evidence rating classifications and criteria for assigning ratings. Attention to detail is important. The criteria for the top rating of some evidence clearinghouses, for example, require a more thorough literature review with more robust results than the criteria for the top rating of others. In addition, some clearinghouses report only on strategies considered to be evidence-based, whereas others also report on strategies that have no effect, mixed evidence, or no qualifying studies, demonstrating that a listing of a strategy by an evidence clearinghouse does not necessarily mean that it is effective. We conclude by providing guidance for users of evidence clearinghouses about how to interpret and effectively apply rating criteria across platforms: look closely at the details of how clearinghouses assign their ratings and be aware of similarities and differences when you are aligning potential strategies with your local priorities. We encourage communities to balance evidence with local needs, resources, and culture in strategy selection and funding decisions.

Wisconsin's BadgerCare Plus reform: impact on low-income families' enrollment and retention in public coverage.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the impact of a Wisconsin health care reform enacted in early 2008 on public insurance enrollment and retention. DATA SOURCES: Administrative data covering the period January 2007 to November 2009. STUDY DESIGN: We calculate unadjusted enrollment trends and exit rates stratified by age, income group, and enrollment mode. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards models are estimated to assess the impact of the reform on program exits. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Overall enrollment increased by approximately one-third and exit rates decreased by approximately one-fifth. The majority of new enrollment came from the previously income eligible. CONCLUSIONS: Wisconsin's enactment of eligibility expansions coupled with administrative simplification and targeted marketing and outreach efforts were successful in enrolling and retaining low-income children and families in public coverage.

Wisconsin physician opinions on health care reform.

OBJECTIVE: To determine Wisconsin physicians' opinions regarding health care reform. METHODS: The University of Wisconsin Survey Research Center performed a 46-question mail survey of 2500 randomly selected physicians from the Wisconsin Medical Society master list of practicing physicians. Respondents rated opinions on a 5-point Likert scale. Demographics of respondents (sex practice type, geographic location, age) were compared to non-responders and the overall Wisconsin physician population. Data analysis quantified opinions regarding the health care system in Wisconsin and nationally, elements of health care reform proposals, and the role of public policy and government in health care. The analysis emphasized a comparison of primary care versus specialist physician responses. RESULTS: The survey yielded a 38% response rate. Respondent demographics were representative of Wisconsin physicians and very similar to nonresponders. Respondents revealed support for several topics, regardless of the respondent's practice type. Respondents also were in agreement on which elements of reform were most frequently favored and most frequently opposed. Nevertheless, there were many areas where primary care physicians strongly differed from specialists, such as favoring legislation for national health insurance (65.6% primary care versus 46.2% specialist). CONCLUSIONS: Wisconsin physicians responding to this survey expressed dissatisfaction with the health care system in which they currently practice and noted a clear desire for system reform. While most respondents agree on a few key priorities, primary care physicians significantly differ in their preferred strategies for reform and, in particular, the role of government in a reformed system. These results indicate a need for more dialogue and education among physicians in order to achieve a consensus that might help promote reform.

Short report: factors that affect specialty choice and career plans of Wisconsin's medical students.

OBJECTIVE: To identify factors that influence specialty choice among Wisconsin medical students and provide insight into approaches to encourage more students to pursue careers in primary care. METHODS: The importance of several factors in medical student career choice was surveyed using a Web survey convenience sample of all Wisconsin medical students. Students intending to pursue a career in primary care and in other specialties were compared. RESULTS: Respondents, regardless of specialty choice or gender, identified a similar group of factors as highly influential, and similar group of factors as non-influential in their decision-making. However, significantly more primary care students than other specialty students considered interest in underserved populations, relationships with patients, scope of practice, and role models important in their career choice. Significantly more primary care students than other specialty students responded that salary and competitiveness were "not at all" important. A greater number of other specialty students than primary care students stated that interest in scope of practice, role models, and training years were "not at all" important. Debt-related factors were reported as "not at all" important by nearly one-third of respondents. CONCLUSIONS: Although primary care and other specialty students report making their career plans based on the impact of similar factors, significant differences between primary care and other specialty students were reported in key areas. These results validate many previously reported factors, and indicate that salary and years of training may have been overemphasized in understanding student career choice. The results of this survey may be useful for Wisconsin medical schools in order to sustain, support, and foster student interest in primary care.