Search

Primary care physicians (PCPs) play an indispensable role in providing comprehensive care and referring patients for specialty care and other medical services. As the COVID-19 outbreak disrupts patient access to care, understanding the quality of primary care is critical at this unprecedented moment to support patients with complex medical needs in the primary care setting and inform policymakers to redesign our primary care system. The traditional way of collecting information from patient surveys is time-consuming and costly, and novel data collection and analysis methods are needed. In this review paper, we describe the existing algorithms and metrics that use the real-world data to qualify and quantify primary care, including the identification of an individual's likely PCP (identification of plurality provider and major provider), assessment of process quality (for example, appropriate-care-model composite measures), and continuity and regularity of care index (including the interval index, variance index and relative variance index), and highlight the strength and limitation of real world data from electronic health records (EHRs) and claims data in determining the quality of PCP care. The EHR audits facilitate assessing the quality of the workflow process and clinical appropriateness of primary care practices. With extensive and diverse records, administrative claims data can provide reliable information as it assesses primary care quality through coded information from different providers or networks. The use of EHRs and administrative claims data may be a cost-effective analytic strategy for evaluating the quality of primary care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The topic of algorithmic fairness is of increasing importance to the Human–Computer Interaction research community following accumulating concerns regarding the use and deployment of Artificial Intelligence-based systems. How we conduct research on algorithmic fairness directly influences our inferences and conclusions regarding algorithmic fairness. To better understand the methodological decisions of studies focused on people's perceptions of algorithmic fairness, we systematic analysed relevant papers from the CHI and FAccT conferences. We identified 200 relevant papers published between 1993 and 2022 and assessed their study design, participant sample, and geographical location of participants and authors. Our results highlight that studies are predominantly cross-sectional, cover a wide range of participant roles, and that both authors and participants are primarily from the United States. Based on these findings, we reflect on the potential pitfalls and shortcomings in how the community studies algorithmic fairness. • Mapping of CHI and FAccT papers on algorithmic fairness published 1993–2022. • Over one-third of papers miss details on participant locality and compensation. • Algorithmic fairness research largely restricted to US and other Western countries. • Limited cross-country collaboration, most study samples from a single country. • Remote studies are most common, longitudinal studies are relatively rare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]