Table 3.

The impact of provider use of Joint Longitudinal Viewer during outpatient primary care visits on provider ordering of duplicate images (stage 1 full output).^a

Joint Longitudinal Viewer encounter (first stage)				Odds ratio (95% CI)		P value
Joint Longitudinal Viewer provider				1.43 (1.05 to 1.81)		<.001
Provider characteristics
	Provider history of ordering imaging studies (quartiles)
		1	Refb		Ref
		2	–0.18 (–0.63 to 0.28)		.45
		3	0.30 (–0.17 to 0.78)		.21
		4	–0.19 (–0.67 to 0.30)		.46
	Provider type
		Physician	Ref		Ref
		Physician assistant/Nurse practitioner	–0.06 (–0.42 to 0.30)		.75
Patient characteristics
	Gender
		Female	Ref		Ref
		Male	–0.20 (–0.56 to 0.16)		.28
	Age (years)
		<30	Ref		Ref
		30-39	0.03 (–0.38 to 0.43)		.90
		40-49	0.10 (–0.34 to 0.55)		.64
		≥50	0.37 (–0.30 to 1.03)		.28
	Race
		White	Ref		Ref
		Black or African American	–0.30 (–0.70 to 0.11)		.15
		Other	–0.29 (–0.75 to 0.18)		.22
	Elixhauser comorbidity score
		0	Ref		Ref
		1	–0.01 (–0.40 to 0.39)		.98
		2	0.29 (–0.19 to 0.77)		.23
		3 and above	0.13 (–0.37 to 0.64)		.61
	Fiscal month
		1	Ref		Ref
		2	0.15 (–0.59 to 0.90)		.69
		3	–0.47 (–1.26 to 0.31)		.24
		4	–0.63 (–1.42 to 0.17)		.12
		5	–0.14 (–0.97 to 0.68)		.73
		6	–0.49 (–1.27 to 0.29)		.22
		7	0.62 (–0.15 to 1.39)		.12
		8	0.61 (–0.10 to 1.33)		.09
		9	0.65 (–0.07 to 1.37)		.08
		10	0.59 (–0.16 to 1.35)		.12
		11	0.68 (–0.10 to 1.46)		.09
		12	0.77 (–0.09 to 1.63)		.08
Consc				–1.11 (–1.88 to –0.33)		.005

^aAverage incremental effects are estimated from the 2-stage residual inclusion logistic regression controlling for all variables shown in the table.

^bRef indicates baseline in the analysis.

^cCons: Constant term in the regression.