eAppendix Table 3.
Descriptive Characteristics of Ambulatory Care Practices Defined as Under-users of EHR-Based HIT Functionalities
| Under-user (%) | p | Total (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11706 (38.9) | 30123 | |||
| Median, mean | 2, 4.3 | < 0.0001 | 2, 5.6 | |
| Size (Number of associated physicians) | < 7 | 9465 (80.9) | < 0.0001 | 23324 (77.4) |
| 7–19 | 1142 (9.6) | 3415 (11.3) | ||
| 20–99 | 365 (3.1) | 1222 (4.1) | ||
| >100 | 734 (6.3) | 2162 (7.2) | ||
| Practice Type | Primary | 3534 (30.2) | < 0.0001 | 9289 (30.8) |
| Single or multiple specialty, allied health | 7267 (62.1) | 18823 (62.5) | ||
| Specialist services and urgent care | 905 (7.7) | 2011 (6.7) | ||
| Location | Rural | 640 (5.5) | <0.0001 | 1402 (4.7) |
| Small town | 1041 (8.9) | 2234 (7.4) | ||
| Mid-size | 1844 (15.8) | 3933 (13.1) | ||
| Metropolitan | 8179 (69.9) | 22518 (74.8) | ||
| Region | Northeast | 2556 (21.8) | <0.0001 | 6141 (20.4) |
| Midwest | 3042 (26.0) | 9756 (32.4) | ||
| South | 4089 (34.9) | 9767 (32.4) | ||
| West | 2019 (17.3) | 4459 (14.8) |
P values calculated with Pearson’s χ2 for categorical variables, they estimate the statistical significance of differences in proportions between categories of practice variables in under-use practices compared to the total sample. Two-sided t test was performed to test significance of difference in mean number of associated physicians. The analysis for the location excludes 36 practices which did not have an accurate zip code-rurality crosswalk.