IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mpr/mprres/dd9415f7585d4e4687e20b71c9ef87da.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Results Are Only as Good as the Sample: Assessing Three National Physician Sampling Frames

Author

Listed:
  • Catherine M. DesRoches
  • Kirsten A. Barrett
  • Bonnie E. Harvey
  • Rachel Kogan
  • James D. Reschovsky
  • Bruce E. Landon
  • Lawrence P. Casalino
  • Stephen M. Shortell
  • Eugene C. Rich

Abstract

Databases of practicing physicians are important for studies that require sampling physicians or counting the physician population in a given area. However, little is known about how the three main sampling frames differ from each other.

Suggested Citation

  • Catherine M. DesRoches & Kirsten A. Barrett & Bonnie E. Harvey & Rachel Kogan & James D. Reschovsky & Bruce E. Landon & Lawrence P. Casalino & Stephen M. Shortell & Eugene C. Rich, "undated". "The Results Are Only as Good as the Sample: Assessing Three National Physician Sampling Frames," Mathematica Policy Research Reports dd9415f7585d4e4687e20b71c, Mathematica Policy Research.
    • Handle: RePEc:mpr:mprres:dd9415f7585d4e4687e20b71c9ef87da
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11606-015-3380-9
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Agha, Leila & Frandsen, Brigham & Rebitzer, James B., 2019. "Fragmented division of labor and healthcare costs: Evidence from moves across regions," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 144-159.
    2. Drake, Coleman, 2019. "What are consumers willing to pay for a broad network health plan?: Evidence from covered California," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 63-77.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    sample; frame; physician; surveys;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:mpr:mprres:dd9415f7585d4e4687e20b71c9ef87da. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joanne Pfleiderer or Cindy George (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/mathius.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.