Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Early Access
    • Multimedia
    • Podcast
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Calls for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Job Seekers
    • Media
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • Podcast
    • E-mail Alerts
    • Journal Club
    • RSS
    • Annals Forum (Archive)
  • Contact
    • Contact Us
  • Careers

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Annals of Family Medicine
  • My alerts
Annals of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Early Access
    • Multimedia
    • Podcast
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Calls for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Job Seekers
    • Media
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • Podcast
    • E-mail Alerts
    • Journal Club
    • RSS
    • Annals Forum (Archive)
  • Contact
    • Contact Us
  • Careers
  • Follow annalsfm on Twitter
  • Visit annalsfm on Facebook
Research ArticleOriginal Research

Patients’ Question-Asking Behavior During Primary Care Visits: A Report From the AAFP National Research Network

James M. Galliher, Douglas M. Post, Barry D. Weiss, L. Miriam Dickinson, Brian K. Manning, Elizabeth W. Staton, Judith Belle Brown, John M. Hickner, Aaron J. Bonham, Bridget L. Ryan and Wilson D. Pace
The Annals of Family Medicine March 2010, 8 (2) 151-159; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1055
James M. Galliher
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Douglas M. Post
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Barry D. Weiss
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
L. Miriam Dickinson
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Brian K. Manning
MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Elizabeth W. Staton
MSTC
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Judith Belle Brown
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
John M. Hickner
MDMS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Aaron J. Bonham
MS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bridget L. Ryan
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Wilson D. Pace
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Published eLetters

If you would like to comment on this article, click on Submit a Response to This article, below. We welcome your input.

Submit a Response to This Article
Compose eLetter

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

Vertical Tabs

Jump to comment:

  • Response to Dr. Ronald M. Epstein
    James M. Galliher
    Published on: 03 May 2010
  • Response to Dr. Kevin Fiscella
    James M. Galliher
    Published on: 03 May 2010
  • Response to Dr. Paul Kinnersley
    James M. Galliher
    Published on: 03 May 2010
  • Response to Dr. Ian M. Bennett
    James M. Galliher
    Published on: 03 May 2010
  • Patient-centered questions?
    Ronald M Epstein
    Published on: 23 March 2010
  • Find out why the intervention failed
    Kevin Fiscella
    Published on: 22 March 2010
  • Further research is needed
    Paul Kinnersley
    Published on: 10 March 2010
  • Important findings for interventions to increase Pat-Phys Communication
    Ian M. Bennett
    Published on: 09 March 2010
  • Published on: (3 May 2010)
    Page navigation anchor for Response to Dr. Ronald M. Epstein
    Response to Dr. Ronald M. Epstein
    • James M. Galliher, Leawood, USA

    In our first discussions when considering how to conduct the study, the project team’s first thought was “Why these questions?” and “How do we know these are THE questions for patients to ask?” and “How were these questions developed and validated?” While we discussed these Ask-Me-3 questions themselves at some length, these WERE the three questions (developed by the Partnership for Clear Health Communication) that are t...

    Show More

    In our first discussions when considering how to conduct the study, the project team’s first thought was “Why these questions?” and “How do we know these are THE questions for patients to ask?” and “How were these questions developed and validated?” While we discussed these Ask-Me-3 questions themselves at some length, these WERE the three questions (developed by the Partnership for Clear Health Communication) that are the central component of the AM3 patient advocacy and communication program. The research reported in The Annals took these questions as given – we agree with Ronald Epstein that these may not be the “right” set of questions to ask.

    Also, down the road we can look at how patient questions varied based on the context of the visit. For example, long-term patients with a given chronic condition (or several chronic conditions) are probably not likely to ask: “What is my main problem?” The same may also be true for younger patients seeing their clinician for a wellness visit.

    Dr. Epstein’s other two questions (“How did physicians respond to patient questions in this study? Is there a need for a brief physician intervention to help them be more responsive?”) are very good ones. We did not address the question in the article of how the physician addressed her/his patient’s questions. And, to the extent that clinicians don’t address the patient’s questions or interrupt during patient question asking, this would appear to be evidence that increased training of clinicians in patient-centered communication and care is needed. However, as part of the practice training for this study, the intervention practices’ lead physicians and study coordinators participated in a full- day face-to-face training session with project staff on the AM3 program intervention which they subsequently implemented in their practices.

    Competing interests:   None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Published on: (3 May 2010)
    Page navigation anchor for Response to Dr. Kevin Fiscella
    Response to Dr. Kevin Fiscella
    • James M. Galliher, Leawood, USA

    Kevin Fiscella is absolutely correct in his suggestion of this hypothesis – the 10 intervention practices may have differentially implemented the AM3 program – some more rigorously than others. We have some data obtained from practices via a post-study survey given to intervention practice staff (lead physicians and others who were familiar with the AM3 program). A cursory glance at these data suggests what one might expe...

    Show More

    Kevin Fiscella is absolutely correct in his suggestion of this hypothesis – the 10 intervention practices may have differentially implemented the AM3 program – some more rigorously than others. We have some data obtained from practices via a post-study survey given to intervention practice staff (lead physicians and others who were familiar with the AM3 program). A cursory glance at these data suggests what one might expect – variability across practices and also within practices on the AM3 implementation. This observation of variability across (and within) busy primary care practices in “how things get accomplished” even operating under a standard protocol remains a central and defining characteristic of primary care.

    Dr. Fiscella also raises the issue that the intervention (AM3 program) may not have had an observed effect because it was not potent enough. The authors are in full agreement. Expecting a low-burden and low-intensity intervention to show an effect after the patient’s first exposure to the intervention is highly unlikely. We would love to be in the position to conduct a longitudinal study with a cohort of study patients to see how/if continued exposure to the intervention would affect the communication patterns between patients and their clinicians.

    We also agree with Kevin that the context of the visit may matter – the AM3 intervention may have a differential effect depending on the type of visit (acute care, chronic care, wellness, etc). As our time allows, we will return to these data and address this question.

    Competing interests:   None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Published on: (3 May 2010)
    Page navigation anchor for Response to Dr. Paul Kinnersley
    Response to Dr. Paul Kinnersley
    • James M. Galliher, Leawood, USA

    Paul Kinnersley contends that the AM3 questions may not have been the “right” ones for these patients to ask – indeed they were asking other several questions (on average) all along. Thus, there was no reason to ask one or more of these specific AM3 questions. And, as he indicates, practices and clinicians should encourage their patients to ask their own questions – the ones that ostensibly make sense to patients.

    ...
    Show More

    Paul Kinnersley contends that the AM3 questions may not have been the “right” ones for these patients to ask – indeed they were asking other several questions (on average) all along. Thus, there was no reason to ask one or more of these specific AM3 questions. And, as he indicates, practices and clinicians should encourage their patients to ask their own questions – the ones that ostensibly make sense to patients.

    Dr. Kinnersley also suggests that encouraging patients immediately before their visit to ask specific questions (ones that may have little meaning to them or may actually be distracting/confusing) is not likely to be effective. This is a very good point and again suggests the need for a longitudinal study in which patients might be exposed to the same intervention across time to observe any possible effect in question asking and/or content of the conversations between clinicians and patients. We might also focus on patients who don’t ask many questions and/or those with relatively low health literacy skills.

    One issue that we did not raise that Paul does is the nature of clinician behavior during their visits with patients. He suggests that a clinicians’ behavior in encouraging question-asking and also in responding to their patients’ questions is something to be studied along with patient question-asking.

    However, his assertion that “Thirdly the [study] physicians were told not to change their approach to the patients…” is only true of control practice physicians – not the AM3 intervention practice physicians (see p. 152, last paragraph third sentence).

    Competing interests:   None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Published on: (3 May 2010)
    Page navigation anchor for Response to Dr. Ian M. Bennett
    Response to Dr. Ian M. Bennett
    • James M. Galliher, Leawood, USA

    Ian Bennett contends that one shortcoming of the design is that “the selection scheme did not result in a perfectly random selection by a number of potentially critical variables like ethnicity and educational attainment.” Just to be clear, he is referring to the desired property that each demographic category (females, males, Hispanics, high school graduates, low health literacy, etc) has approximately equal proportions...

    Show More

    Ian Bennett contends that one shortcoming of the design is that “the selection scheme did not result in a perfectly random selection by a number of potentially critical variables like ethnicity and educational attainment.” Just to be clear, he is referring to the desired property that each demographic category (females, males, Hispanics, high school graduates, low health literacy, etc) has approximately equal proportions in both the intervention and control groups. One can have a “perfect” random sample (i.e., no shortcomings or mistakes in the actual sampling process), yet the two groups may differ simply due to random sampling fluctuations. Each random sample or group based on random assignment (of patients or practices) will differ due to sampling error – in some cases, the differences may be statistically significant at some level (e.g., p<.05). This simply means that randomization is not a guarantee of statistical comparability between study groups.

    Dr. Bennett observes that a better design would be to measure patient question-asking at baseline (before the intervention) and again afterwards with both the control and intervention patients to determine if the AM3 had an impact and to control statistically for any observed differences between the two groups at baseline. He is certainly correct here, and this would have been a much more powerful design, but also more time-consuming, costly, and burdensome to the study practices. But as he suggests, measuring baseline rates of patient-question asking before implementing the intervention would inform the investigators of the variability in questions asked – we then could concentrate on those practices whose patients do not approach some level of question-asking of their clinicians during their visits. This is the group for whom a program such as AM3 might be more beneficial – as he mentions.

    We have performed numerous sub-analyses with these data. We did not systematically address the statistical bivariate associations between each of the control (demographic items) and question-asking in either or both groups (intervention and controls). Dr. Bennett also suggests creating a group of “low question askers” (some range of questions asked – e.g., first quartile or below the median) to see if exposure to AM3 resulted in more questions asked compared to study patients not exposed to AM3. Even if not statistically significant due to lack of ample power, this would suggest that with a larger sample of low question askers, the AM3 resulted in more questions asked – whether of the specific AM3 type or not.

    Competing interests:   None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Published on: (23 March 2010)
    Page navigation anchor for Patient-centered questions?
    Patient-centered questions?
    • Ronald M Epstein, Rochester, NY USA

    While congratulating the authors on a generally well-conducted study, perhaps some additional observations might be helpful.

    First, these might not have been the right questions. It is not clear the degree to which patients were consulted about the importance of the questions, and whether alternatives were presented. I cannot help but notice that the questions proposed were about enhancing patient acquiescence to...

    Show More

    While congratulating the authors on a generally well-conducted study, perhaps some additional observations might be helpful.

    First, these might not have been the right questions. It is not clear the degree to which patients were consulted about the importance of the questions, and whether alternatives were presented. I cannot help but notice that the questions proposed were about enhancing patient acquiescence to the physician’s view of the problem and its treatment. Imagine if the questions suggested to patients were something like, “Can you give me some idea about how much of a difference the treatment will really make?” In oncology, these questions are rarely asked (1) and likely similarly uncommon in the context of otitis media, diabetes and dysthymia.

    Second, studies in oncology (1) suggest that patient question-asking is quickly suppressed if physicians do not acknowledge the question, seem interested and ask if there are additional concerns. How did physicians respond to patient questions in this study? Is there a need for a brief physician intervention to help them be more responsive?

    Considering the costs associated with poor communication, further refining of interventions to improve communication seems to have sufficient justification.

    Reference List

    (1) Clayton JM, Butow PN, Tattersall MH et al. Randomized controlled trial of a prompt list to help advanced cancer patients and their caregivers to ask questions about prognosis and end-of-life care. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:715-723.

    Competing interests:   None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Published on: (22 March 2010)
    Page navigation anchor for Find out why the intervention failed
    Find out why the intervention failed
    • Kevin Fiscella, Rochester, NY

    This study highlights the types of practical questions that can be addressed using a randomized controlled design implemented in a practice based research network. The investigators asked a simple question: does low- intensity promotion of the AM3 increase patient question asking during family medicine office visits?

    The study shows that it does not. Previous comments have suggested this might be due to ceili...

    Show More

    This study highlights the types of practical questions that can be addressed using a randomized controlled design implemented in a practice based research network. The investigators asked a simple question: does low- intensity promotion of the AM3 increase patient question asking during family medicine office visits?

    The study shows that it does not. Previous comments have suggested this might be due to ceiling effects because 92% of patients in both groups asked at least one question. This is not surprising - few patients would be expected to ask no questions during an entire office visit. What is notable is that there was no ceiling in asking AM3 questions. Only 30% of control patient and 26% of the intervention patients asked at least one of these questions. Clearly, the intervention had no effect on AM3 questions.

    So why did the intervention fail to change patient behavior? Clues to an answer will require the investigators to explore issues surrounding implementation with their data. Did participating practices always ensure that waiting rooms were stocked with brochures? How often did the receptionist forget to hand a brochure to a patient? How often and by what means did medical assistants encourage patients to ask these questions?

    If the intervention was effectively implemented it may be that it was simply not potent enough. Previous studies show that formal coaching of patients improve rates of questions during visits. Simply handing out brochures and suggesting patients try out the questions may not be sufficient to change their behavior during the visit. Qualitative exit interview data from participating patients about why they didn't use these questions might shed light on this key issue.

    Last, context may matter. The investigators did not restrict enrollment to patients with certain types of visits or problems. Clues about visit context might emerge from further analysis of the audiotapes. Were patients more likely to ask AM3 questions during certain types of visits? Intuitively, one would expect patients to find AM3 questions more relevant for a new presenting complaint or discussion of a new problem such as an abnormal finding.

    Determining the reasons for the negative study findings will maximize the value of the study. Discovering whether the findings reflect suboptimal implementation of the intervention, wrong intervention or wrong context will inform next steps in research related to question asking during office visits.

    Competing interests:   None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Published on: (10 March 2010)
    Page navigation anchor for Further research is needed
    Further research is needed
    • Paul Kinnersley, Cardiff, Wales

    This is a large, apparently well conducted randomised trial. For those of us who support methods of trying to help patients ask more questions in their consultations the results may appear disappointing but I think there are several possible explanations. Firstly this study constrained patients to ask three particular questions rather than encouraging them to think of their own questions. This approach may not have s...

    Show More

    This is a large, apparently well conducted randomised trial. For those of us who support methods of trying to help patients ask more questions in their consultations the results may appear disappointing but I think there are several possible explanations. Firstly this study constrained patients to ask three particular questions rather than encouraging them to think of their own questions. This approach may not have suited some patients and in fact Table 5 shows that more of the control group asked the AM3 questions than the intervention patients! Secondly the intervention was delivered to the patients immediately before their consultations which means it has little time to work or for patients to really consider changing their approach to the consultation. Thirdly the physicians were told not to change their approach to the patients so even if the intervention patients were feeling empowered to ask more questions they may have found this difficult if the physicians were not open to this. Finally as the authors point out, both groups of patients asked a relatively high number of questions and there may have been a ceiling effect preventing further improvement.

    Given the lack of differences between the groups on question asking it is unsurprising that there were no differences in the adherence outcomes. But it is interesting to note that only 69-74% recalled a new prescription and 59-68% recalled a lifestyle recommendation. This demonstrates that there is a need for improvement in the communication in these consultations.

    With colleagues I have conducted a systematic review [1] of 33 similar interventions in a range of settings (but mainly family practice and Oncology). Meta-analysis showed that the interventions do increase question asking and patient satisfaction without leading to an increase in consultation length. I would support the authors conclusion that research is needed into interventions which are used over several visits as I think this would increase their power and provide us with more interesting data.

    Reference

    1. Kinnersley P, Edwards A, Hood K, Cadbury N, Ryan R, Prout H, Owen D, MacBeth F, Butow P, Butler C. Interventions before consultations for helping patients address their information needs. BMJ 2008;337:485- doi:10.1136/bmj.a485

    Competing interests:   None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Published on: (9 March 2010)
    Page navigation anchor for Important findings for interventions to increase Pat-Phys Communication
    Important findings for interventions to increase Pat-Phys Communication
    • Ian M. Bennett, Philadelphia, USA

    This trial of the Ask Me 3 intervention to increase patient "question asking" in primary care is an interesting and important study for primary care and the authors are to be commended for their efforts. Although there were a few shortcomings to the design (it seems that the selection scheme did not result in a perfectly random selection by a number of potentially critical variables like ethnicity and educational attai...

    Show More

    This trial of the Ask Me 3 intervention to increase patient "question asking" in primary care is an interesting and important study for primary care and the authors are to be commended for their efforts. Although there were a few shortcomings to the design (it seems that the selection scheme did not result in a perfectly random selection by a number of potentially critical variables like ethnicity and educational attainment) the overall findings and message seem sound with some important caveats that might get lost in the discussion.

    It appears that this approach to trying to stimulate question asking among patients in these sites doesn't have any effect. A proposed explanation certainly is possible - the rates are already so high you couldn't do any better. I guess this is a good example of the benefits of first identifying what the baseline rate of the target condition is before selecting study sites and then choosing sites where there is a reasonable prevalence of the target condition (in this case low rates of question asking among patients).

    I worry that the need of the target group for interventions like this - patients who do not ask questions - will be lost in the discussion of these study results. It's a shame that we will not be able to answer the question of whether the intervention works for folks who don't ask questions.

    I wonder if the authors carried out any analyses to see if there were significant associations between any of the control variables and question asking in the control group. If a group with low question asking could be identified a sub-analysis could be done to see if the intervention worked in that subgroup at least.

    I also think it would be helpful to hear more about the health literacy measure. Specifically - how the measure was changed from the original validated measure, what validation, if any was done with the modified measure, and what the justification was for the specific cut points chosen to identify risk of low health literacy.

    Competing interests:   None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Annals of Family Medicine: 8 (2)
The Annals of Family Medicine: 8 (2)
Vol. 8, Issue 2
1 Mar 2010
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • In Brief
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Annals of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Patients’ Question-Asking Behavior During Primary Care Visits: A Report From the AAFP National Research Network
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Annals of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Annals of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
8 + 6 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Patients’ Question-Asking Behavior During Primary Care Visits: A Report From the AAFP National Research Network
James M. Galliher, Douglas M. Post, Barry D. Weiss, L. Miriam Dickinson, Brian K. Manning, Elizabeth W. Staton, Judith Belle Brown, John M. Hickner, Aaron J. Bonham, Bridget L. Ryan, Wilson D. Pace
The Annals of Family Medicine Mar 2010, 8 (2) 151-159; DOI: 10.1370/afm.1055

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Get Permissions
Share
Patients’ Question-Asking Behavior During Primary Care Visits: A Report From the AAFP National Research Network
James M. Galliher, Douglas M. Post, Barry D. Weiss, L. Miriam Dickinson, Brian K. Manning, Elizabeth W. Staton, Judith Belle Brown, John M. Hickner, Aaron J. Bonham, Bridget L. Ryan, Wilson D. Pace
The Annals of Family Medicine Mar 2010, 8 (2) 151-159; DOI: 10.1370/afm.1055
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Patients With Mental Health Needs Are Engaged In Asking Questions, But Physicians' Responses Vary
  • Multidisciplinary Discourse
  • Tip of the Iceberg
  • In This Issue: Relationships Count for Patients and Doctors Alike
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Performance-Based Reimbursement, Illegitimate Tasks, Moral Distress, and Quality Care in Primary Care: A Mediation Model of Longitudinal Data
  • Adverse Outcomes Associated With Inhaled Corticosteroid Use in Individuals With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
  • Family-Based Interventions to Promote Weight Management in Adults: Results From a Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial in India
Show more Original Research

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • Methods:
    • Quantitative methods
  • Other research types:
    • PBRN research
  • Core values of primary care:
    • Personalized care
  • Other topics:
    • Communication / decision making

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Early Access
  • Plain-Language Summaries
  • Multimedia
  • Podcast
  • Articles by Type
  • Articles by Subject
  • Supplements
  • Calls for Papers

Info for

  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • Job Seekers
  • Media

Engage

  • E-mail Alerts
  • e-Letters (Comments)
  • RSS
  • Journal Club
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Subscribe
  • Family Medicine Careers

About

  • About Us
  • Editorial Board & Staff
  • Sponsoring Organizations
  • Copyrights & Permissions
  • Contact Us
  • eLetter/Comments Policy

© 2025 Annals of Family Medicine