Table 5.

Regression Models with RIAS Patient-Centered Composites as Predictors. Coefficients are Represented as OR With 95 % CI

Variable	Incorrect care plan	Probing biomedical red flags	Probing contextual red flags	Incorrect care plan	Probing biomedical red flags	Probing contextual red flags
Design features
Clinical case (4 levels)	(ns)	(significant)	(significant)	(ns)	(significant)	(significant)
Biomedically complicated	0.4 [0.2, 1.1]	4.2 [1.8, 10.0]	0.7 [0.3, 1.3]	0.4 [0.2, 1.1]	3.9 [1.7, 9.2]	0.7 [0.3, 1.3]
Contextually complicated	0.2 [0.1, 0.4]	1.1 [0.5, 2.6]	2.5 [1.3, 5.0]	0.2 [0.1, 0.4]	1.1 [0.5, 2.5]	2.3 [1.2, 4.5]
Biomedically complicated x   Contextually complicated (no   complications vs. any complications)	0.3 [0.1, 0.9]	1.0 [0.3, 3.4]	2.7 [1.0, 7.3]	0.3 [0.1, 1.0]	1.0 [0.3, 3.4]	2.7 [1.0, 7.3]
Patient white race	0.8 [0.5, 1.4]	0.6 [0.3, 1.1]	1.0 [0.6, 1.6]	0.8 [0.5, 1.4]	0.6 [0.3, 1.1]	1.0 [0.6, 1.6]
Physician features
Clinical site (14 levels)	(ns)	(ns)	(ns)	(ns)	(ns)	(ns)
Completed all scheduled study visits	2.2 [0.6, 7.7]	1.4 [0.4, 5.6]	3.0 [1.0, 9.1]	2.2 [0.6, 7.7]	1.5 [0.4, 5.6]	3.0 [1.0, 9.1]
Did not provide demographic   information	1.3 [0.6, 2.9]	0.5 [0.2, 1.3]	1.8 [0.9, 3.6]	1.3 [0.6, 2.9]	0.6 [0.3, 1.4]	1.8 [0.9, 3.6]
Visit features
Face time (minutes)	1.0 [1.0, 1.1]	1.1 [1.0, 1.1]	1.0 [1.0, 1.1]	1.0 [1.0, 1.1]	1.1 [1.0, 1.1]	1.0 [1.0, 1.1]
Responded to post-visit question about   whether they thought they saw a USP	0.5 [0.2, 1.3]	1.2 [0.4, 3.4]	0.4 [0.2, 1.0]	0.5 [0.2, 1.3]	1.3 [0.5, 3.7]	0.4 [0.1, 0.9]
Responded “yes” to post-visit question   about whether they thought they saw   a USP	1.2 [0.4, 3.4]	1.1 [0.4, 3.3]	1.6 [0.6, 4.2]	1.3 [0.4, 3.5]	0.9 [0.3, 2.7]	1.8 [0.7, 4.7]
RIAS measures
Patient-centered communication 1	1.3 [0.4, 4.5]	0.04 [0.01, 0.1]	4.1 [1.2, 14.7]	–	–	–
Patient-centered communication 2	–	–	–	1.0 [0.6, 1.5]	0.5 [0.4, 0.8]	1.4 [0.9, 2.1]
Degrees of freedom	257	257	257	257	257	257
Fit measure: Akaike Information   Criterion	425.13	378.50	467.54	425.24	370.66	471.78