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

Parent and Child Usual Source of Care and Children’s Receipt of Health Care Services

Jennifer E. DeVoe, Carrie J. Tillotson, Lorraine S. Wallace, Heather Angier, Matthew J. Carlson and Rachel Gold
The Annals of Family Medicine November 2011, 9 (6) 504-513; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1300
Jennifer E. DeVoe
MD, DPhil
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: devoej@ohsu.edu
Carrie J. Tillotson
MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lorraine S. Wallace
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Heather Angier
MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Matthew J. Carlson
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rachel Gold
PhD, MPH
  • 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

Article Figures & Data

Tables

  • Additional Files
    • View popup
    Table 1

    Family Usual Source of Care (USC) Patterns for US Children Aged 0 to 17 Years Living With at Least 1 Parent, 2002–2007

    Family USC PatternsUnweighted NaYearly Average Weighted to US Populationb (in millions)Weighted %b (95% CI)
    Cross-sectional: 6 groups
    Child yes USC
     USC: yes parent(s)34,36047.566.9 (65.6–68.1)
     USC: yes 1 parent/no 1 parent6,8948.311.7 (11.0–12.3)
     USC: no parent(s)8,4878.812.4 (11.7–13.1)
    Child no USC
     USC: yes parent(s)8411.01.3 (1.2–1.5)
     USC: yes 1 parent/no 1 parent7880.81.2 (1.0–1.3)
     USC: no parent(s)4,9324.66.5 (6.0–7.1)
    Total56,30270.9100.0
    Cross-sectional: 4 groups
    Child yes USC
     USC: yes parent(s)41,25455.778.6 (77.5–79.6)
     USC: no parent(s)8,4878.812.4 (11.7–13.1)
    Child no USC
     USC: yes parent(s)1,6291.82.5 (2.3–2.8)
     USC: no parent(s)4,9324.66.5 (6.0–7.1)
    Total56,30270.9100.0
    • Source: 2002–2007 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), Household Component.

    • Note: Column percentages may not equal 100% because of rounding (rounded to nearest 10th).

    • ↵a Unweighted counts represent total number of children, aged 0–17 years, from MEPS-respondent households with a positive person weight who could be linked to at least 1 parent within the household. Total counts do not include 2,049 children with no parent identified in the household. Total also excludes 437 children for whom USC status could not be ascertained for the child or the parent.

    • ↵b To derive the yearly population estimates, each child record from the MEPS was weighted according to person-level weights provided by the data collection agency.

    • View popup
    Table 2

    Characteristics Associated With Different Cross-Sectional Family Usual Source of Care (USC) Patterns for US Children Aged 0 to 17 Years Living With at Least 1 Parent, 2002–2007

    Cross-Sectional Family USC Patterns: 4 Groups (Does Not Account for Discordant Parent Status)
    CharacteristicsAll ChildrenUSC: Yes Child/Yes Parent(s)USC: Yes Child/No ParentUSC: No Child/Yes Parent(s)USC: No Child/No Parent
    No. in samplea56,30241,2548,4871,6294,932
    Household income group, % FPLb,c
     >400%28.831.918.518.915.0
     200% to <400%33.134.426.734.029.4
     125% to <200%15.814.619.422.121.5
     100% to <125%5.44.77.77.38.3
     <100%17.014.527.717.825.7
    Child’s age, y, %b
     0–427.426.739.512.917.7
     5–927.427.528.718.726.0
     10–1322.422.618.823.725.3
     14–1722.923.212.944.731.0
    Child’s race/ethnicity, %b,d
     White, non-Hispanic58.963.146.144.938.1
     Hispanic, any race19.716.529.425.637.0
     Nonwhite, non-Hispanic21.420.424.529.525.0
    Family composition, %b,e
     1 Parent in household26.223.538.624.736.8
     2 Parents in household73.876.661.475.363.2
    At least 1 parent completed high school, %
     Yes85.988.677.978.271.9
     No14.111.422.121.828.1
    Geographic residence, %b
     Northeast17.519.810.38.26.9
     West24.423.325.428.633.4
     South35.933.047.645.845.4
     Midwest22.223.916.717.414.3
    Child’s insurance status, %b
     Full year insured81.885.776.964.150.9
     Insurance gap11.49.216.418.524.6
     Full year uninsured6.85.16.617.424.6
    Parent’s insurance status, %b
     Insured all year (at least 1 parent)75.682.151.668.845.4
     Not insured all year24.417.948.531.254.6
    Child health status, %b
     Excellent/very good82.383.378.582.578.2
     Good/fair/poor17.716.721.517.521.8
    • FPL = federal poverty level; MEPS-HC = Medical Expenditure Panel Survey-Household Component.

    • Source: 2002–2007 MEPS-HC.

    • Note: Column percentages are weighted and may not equal 100% because of rounding (rounded to nearest 10th). P <.05 in χ3 test comparisons of overall differences between subgroups of each covariate and insurance patterns.

    • ↵a Unweighted counts represent total number of children, aged 0–17 years, from MEPS-HC respondent households with a positive person weight who could be linked to at least 1 parent within the household. Total counts do not include 2,049 children with no parent identified in the household; cross-sectional total also excludes 437 children for whom self or parental USC status could not be ascertained.

    • ↵b To derive yearly population estimates, each child record from MEPS-HC was weighted according to person-level weights provided by the data collection agency.

    • ↵c Household income groups were based on MEPS-HC–constructed variable that divides families into 5 income groups based on earnings as a percentage of federal poverty level (FPL), and in 2007, the federal poverty level for a family of 4 was $20,650.37

    • ↵d Child’s race/ethnicity based on responses to standard options provided by MEPS-HC interviewers. We created 1 child race/ethnicity variable by combining a race variable (which included white only, black only, American Indian/Alaskan Native only, Asian only, native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander only, and multiple races) and an ethnicity variable (which included Hispanic, or not Hispanic).

    • ↵e Family composition refers to whether the child could be linked to 1 parent (n = 17,612) or 2 parents (n = 38,690) residing in the same household (does not account for biological relationship between parent and child or the marriage status between the 2 parents).

    • View popup
    Table 3

    Univariate Associations Between Cross-Sectional Family Usual Source of Care (USC) Patterns and Children’s Receipt of Health Care Services, 2002–2007

    OutcomesAll Children Weighted % (95% CI)aUSC: Yes Child/Yes Parent(s) Weighted % (95% CI)aUSC: Yes Child/No Parent Weighted % (95% CI)aUSC: No Child/Yes Parent(s) Weighted % (95% CI)aUSC: No Child/No Parent Weighted % (95% CI)a
    Cross-sectional: 4 groups
    No. in sampleb56,30241,2548,4871,6294,932
     Child had insurance coverage gap18.2 (17.4–19.1)14.3 (13.6–15.1)23.1 (21.2–25.1)35.9 (32.0–40.0)49.1 (46.3–52.0)
     No doctor visits in past year23.0 (22.2–23.9)19.1 (18.3–19.9)22.6 (20.9–24.4)54.6 (51.0–58.1)58.9 (56.4–61.4)
     No dental visits at least yearly27.6 (26.7–28.4)24.7 (23.9–25.6)37.3 (35.2–39.3)35.6 (31.9–39.5)40.1 (37.5–42.7)
     Unmet medical or prescription needc1.4 (1.2–1.6)1.1 (0.9–1.2)2.1 (1.5–3.1)2.5 (1.6–4.0)3.6 (2.8–4.6)
     Delayed cared31.0 (30.0–32.0)30.2 (29.2–31.2)33.1 (30.9–35.5)33.8 (29.0–38.9)40.6 (37.1–44.1)
     Problems getting caree15.6 (14.8–16.5)14.5 (13.7–15.4)17.8 (15.5–20.4)28.1 (22.2–34.8)31.4 (27.0–36.3)
    Cross-sectional: 4 groups
    No. in sampleb50,60237,1757,2011,5664,660
    Past 2 years
     Did not receive all 4 preventive counseling items (missing >1)f,g83.2 (82.4–84.0)82.0 (81.0–83.0)85.4 (83.8–86.8)90.2 (87.2–92.5)90.8 (89.0–92.3)
     Did not receive any of 4 preventive counseling items (missing all 4)f39.8 (38.8–40.9)37.2 (36.1–38.3)40.0 (37.6–42.4)62.5 (58.6–66.3)61.6 (59.2–63.9)
    Lifetime
     Did not receive all 4 preventive counseling items (missing >1)f,h80.0 (78.9–80.9)78.6 (77.4–79.6)82.9 (81.3–84.5)87.1 (83.8–89.8)87.9 (85.9–89.6)
     Did not receive any of 4 preventive counseling items (missing all 4)f33.4 (32.3–34.5)31.0 (29.9–32.1)33.8 (31.6–36.1)53.5 (49.5–57.5)52.8 (50.2–55.5)
    • Source: 2002–2007 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey-Household Component (MEPS-HC).

    • Note: P <.05 in χ3 test comparisons of overall differences between insurance pattern subgroups and all outcome measures.

    • ↵a To derive the yearly population estimates, each child record from the MEPS-HC was weighted according to person-level weights provided by the data collection agency.

    • ↵b Unweighted counts represent total number of children, aged 0–17 years, from MEPS-HC–respondent households with a positive person weight who could be linked to at least 1 parent within the household. Total counts do not include 2,049 children with no parent identified in the household. Total also excludes 437 children for whom USC status could not be ascertained for the child and/or parent.

    • ↵c Unmet medical or prescription need was defined as being unable to get medical care and/or prescription medications when needed within the past year.

    • ↵d Delayed care was defined as parental report that child did not always get care as soon as was wanted for an illness, injury, or condition that needed care right away; or did not always get an appointment for routine health care as soon as was wanted.

    • ↵e Problems getting care was defined as parent reporting a big or small problem that child did not receive needed medical or prescription treatment; a big or small problem to get the child care, tests, or treatment a parent or doctor believed necessary; or a big or small problem to see a specialist the child needed to see.

    • ↵f The preventive counseling services include MEPS-HC items that asked parents whether a doctor or health care clinician had advised their child about the importance of (1) healthy eating, (2) routine exercise, (3) use of car safety seats/booster seats/seat belts, and (4) use of a helmet while riding a tricycle/bicycle.

    • ↵g In the past 2 years among all children, 39.8% were missing all 4 preventive counseling items; 16.7% were missing 3 items; 15.3% were missing 2 items; 11.4% were missing 1 item (16.8% had received all 4 items).

    • ↵h Over a lifetime among all children, 33.4% were missing all 4 preventive counseling items; 16.9% were missing 3 items; 16.5% were missing 2 items; 13.2% were missing 1 item (20.1% had received all 4 items).

    • View popup
    Table 4

    Multivariate Associations Between Child and Family Characteristics and Children’s Access to Health Care (2002–2007)

    Demographic and Other CharacteristicsChild Health Insurance Coverage Gap aRR (95% CI)No Doctor Visits in Past 12 Moa aRR (95% CI)Child Dentist Visits <1/yb aRR (95% CI)Unmet Medical or Prescription Needc aRR (95% CI)Delayed Cared aRR (95% CI)Problems Getting Caree aRR (95% CI)
    Family USC patterns
     USC: yes child/yes parent(s)f1.001.001.001.001.001.00
     USC: yes child/no parent1.33 (1.21–1.47)g1.11 (1.02–1.21)g1.12 (1.06–1.18)g1.70 (1.09–2.65)g1.00 (0.93–1.08)1.06 (0.91–1.23)
     USC: no child/yes parent(s)2.15 (1.92–2.41)g2.19 (2.02–2.38)g1.40 (1.28–1.52)g1.63 (0.98–2.69)1.05 (0.91–1.21)1.65 (1.32–2.07)g
     USC: no child/no parent2.82 (2.60–3.04)g2.35 (2.22–2.50)g1.38 (1.30–1.47)g2.00 (1.51–2.66)g1.19 (1.08–1.32)g1.70 (1.45–2.00)g
    Household income group, % FPL
     >400%f1.001.001.001.001.001.00
     200% - <400%1.57 (1.40–1.76)g1.47 (1.37–1.58)g1.26 (1.19–1.33)g1.91 (1.30–2.80)g1.03 (0.97–1.09)1.25 (1.11–1.41)g
     125% to <200%2.09 (1.86–2.35)g1.63 (1.49–1.77)g1.44 (1.34–1.55)g2.13 (1.51–3.01)g1.03 (0.95–1.11)1.31 (1.15–1.50)g
     100% to <125%2.05 (1.76–2.39)g1.66 (1.51–1.84)g1.42 (1.30–1.56)g2.32 (1.42–3.81)g1.07 (0.96–1.18)1.36 (1.12–1.64)g
     <100%1.67 (1.47–1.91)g1.60 (1.46–1.75)g1.40 (1.30–1.51)g2.19 (1.50–3.20) g1.09 (1.00–1.19)1.50 (1.29–1.74)g
    Child’s age, y
     0–4f1.001.001.001.001.001.00
     5–90.99 (0.92–1.06)2.12 (1.98–2.29)g0.22 (0.21–0.24)g1.38 (1.07–1.78)g1.03 (0.98–1.09)1.05 (0.96–1.16)
     10–131.05 (0.97–1.13)2.39 (2.20–2.58)g0.20 (0.19–0.22)g1.26 (0.90–1.76)1.04 (0.97–1.11)1.06 (0.94–1.19)
     14–171.06 (0.98–1.15)2.50 (2.32–2.69)g0.30 (0.28–0.32)g1.48 (1.06–2.07)g1.09 (1.02–1.16)g1.16 (1.04–1.30)g
    Child’s race/ethnicity
     White, non- Hispanicf1.001.001.001.001.001.00
     Hispanic, any race1.34 (1.23–1.47)g1.17 (1.09–1.26)g0.99 (0.93–1.05)0.56 (0.40–0.78)g1.09 (1.01–1.17)g1.07 (0.96–1.18)
     Nonwhite, non-Hispanic0.86 (0.77–0.95)g1.24 (1.16–1.32)g1.00 (0.95–1.05)0.74 (0.57–0.97)g1.04 (0.98–1.11)1.06 (0.94–1.19)
    Family composition
     2 Parents in householdf1.001.001.001.001.001.00
     1 Parent in household1.09 (1.01–1.18)g0.92 (0.88–0.97)g1.04 (0.99–1.09)1.19 (0.92–1.54)1.07 (1.02–1.13) g1.03 (0.93–1.14)
    At least 1 parent completed high school
     Yesf1.001.001.001.001.001.00
     No1.14 (1.04–1.25)g1.22 (1.14–1.30)g1.19 (1.12–1.26)g0.82 (0.62–1.07)1.06 (0.99–1.14)0.87 (0.77–1.00)
    Geographic residence
     Northeast (reference group)1.001.001.001.001.001.00
     West1.26 (1.10–1.44)g1.68 (1.48–1.90)g1.14 (1.04–1.24)g0.99 (0.64–1.52)1.31 (1.19–1.44)g1.10 (0.94–1.28)
     South1.38 (1.21–1.57)g1.39 (1.23–1.57)g1.14 (1.05–1.23)g0.98 (0.70–1.36)1.12 (1.02–1.23)g0.93 (0.81–1.06)
     Midwest1.13 (0.99–1.29)1.42 (1.25–1.61)g1.12 (1.02–1.22)g1.00 (0.70–1.43)1.19 (1.08–1.31)g0.90 (0.77–1.05)
    Parent’s insurance status
     Insured all year (at least 1)fN/A1.001.001.001.001.00
     Not insured all yearN/A1.03 (0.97–1.09)0.97 (0.91–1.03)1.14 (0.89–1.46)1.08 (1.01–1.15)1.11 (0.99–1.25)
    Child’s insurance status
     Insured all yearfN/A1.001.001.001.001.00
     Partial year insuranceN/A1.19 (1.11–1.27)g1.37 (1.29–1.45)g2.65 (2.11–3.33)g1.06 (0.99–1.14)1.28 (1.13–1.46)g
     Full year uninsuredN/A1.47 (1.37–1.59)g1.80 (1.69–1.91)g3.47 (2.69–4.46)g1.00 (0.90–1.11)1.49 (1.29–1.73)g
    Child health status
     Excellent/very goodf1.001.001.001.001.001.00
     Good/fair/poor1.03 (0.97–1.09)0.74 (0.70–0.79)g1.09 (1.05–1.14)g2.35 (1.87–2.96)g1.26 (1.19–1.32)g1.68 (1.54–1.83)g
    • Source: 2002–2007 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey-Household Component.

    • aRR = adjusted risk ratio; FPL = federal poverty level; USC = usual source of care.

    • ↵a Yearly doctor visits were chosen as an unmet need variable because the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends yearly preventive pediatric health care visits up to age 21 years.32

    • ↵b American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry recommends yearly dental visits begin at time of first tooth and no later than 12 months of age.33

    • ↵c Unmet medical or prescription need was defined as being unable to get medical care and/or prescription medications when needed within the past year.

    • ↵d Delayed care was defined as parental report that child did not always get care as soon as was wanted for an illness, injury, or condition that needed care right away; or did not always get an appointment for routine health care as soon as was wanted.

    • ↵e Problems getting care was defined as parent reporting a big or small problem that the child did not receive needed medical or prescription treatment; a big or small problem to get the child care, tests, or treatment a parent or doctor believed necessary; or a big or small problem to see a specialist the child needed to see.

    • ↵f Reference group.

    • ↵g P <.05.

    • View popup
    Table 5

    Multivariate Associations Between Child and Family Characteristics and Children’s Receipt of Preventive Counseling (2002–2007)

    Past 2 YearsLifetime
    Demographic and Other CharacteristicsDid Not Receive All 4 Preventive Counseling Items (Missing ≥1)a aRR (95% CI)Did Not Receive Any of 4 Preventive Counseling Itemsa aRR (95% CI)Did Not Receive All 4 Preventive Counseling Items (Missing ≥1)a aRR (95% CI)Did Not Receive Any of 4 Preventive Counseling Itemsa aRR (95% CI)
    Family USC patterns
     USC: yes child/yes parent(s)b1.001.001.001.00
     USC: yes child/no parent1.03 (1.01–1.05)c1.07 (1.01–1.14)c1.04 (1.01–1.06)c1.06 (0.99–1.13)
     USC: no child/yes parent(s)1.07 (1.03–1.11)c1.49 (1.38–1.61)c1.08 (1.04–1.12)c1.52 (1.39–1.66)c
     USC: no child/no parent1.08 (1.05–1.11)c1.47 (1.40–1.55)c1.09 (1.06–1.12)c1.49 (1.39–1.60)c
    Household income group, % FPL
     >400%b1.001.001.001.00
     200% - <400%1.05 (1.02–1.07)c1.23 (1.17–1.30)c1.05 (1.03–1.08)c1.27 (1.19–1.35)c
     125% to <200%1.04 (1.01–1.07)c1.24 (1.16–1.32)c1.06 (1.03–1.09)c1.31 (1.21–1.41)c
     100% to <125%1.03 (1.00–1.07)1.22 (1.12–1.33)c1.04 (1.01–1.08)c1.27 (1.15–1.40)c
     <100%1.02 (0.99–1.05)1.17 (1.10–1.25)c1.03 (1.00–1.06)1.23 (1.14–1.33)c
    Child’s age, y
     2–4b1.001.001.001.00
     5–90.97 (0.96–0.99)c1.35 (1.29–1.42)c0.95 (0.93-.096)c1.27 (1.21–1.35)c
     10–131.00 (0.98–1.02)1.52 (1.44–1.61)c0.96 (0.94–0.98)c1.43 (1.34–1.51)c
     14–171.06 (1.04–1.07)c1.70 (1.61–1.81)c1.01 (0.99–1.03)1.55 (1.44–1.65)c
    Child’s race/ethnicity
     White, non-Hispanicb1.001.001.001.00
     Hispanic, any race0.95 (0.93–0.97)c0.88 (0.83–0.93)c0.95 (0.93–0.98)c0.94 (0.89–1.00)
     Nonwhite, non-Hispanic0.99 (0.98–1.01)0.96 (0.91–1.02)1.01 (0.99–1.03)1.02 (0.96–1.09)
    Family composition
     2 Parents in householdb1.001.001.001.00
     1 Parent in household1.02 (1.01–1.04)c0.99 (0.95–1.03)1.03 (1.01–1.04)c0.98 (0.94–1.04)
    At least 1 parent completed high school
     Yesb1.001.001.001.00
     No1.00 (0.98–1.02)1.09 (1.04–1.15)c1.01 (0.99–1.04)1.12 (1.06–1.19)c
    Geographic residence
     Northeastb1.001.001.001.00
     West1.10 (1.06–1.14)c1.40 (1.26–1.56)c1.08 (1.03–1.13)c1.29 (1.14–1.46)c
     South1.12 (1.08–1.16)c1.37 (1.24–1.52)c1.12 (1.08–1.16)c1.31 (1.16–1.47)c
     Midwest1.11 (1.07–1.15)c1.36 (1.22–1.51)c1.11 (1.07–1.16)c1.29 (1.14–1.46)c
    Parent’s insurance status
     Insured all year (at least 1 parent)b1.001.001.001.00
     Not insured all year1.01 (0.99–1.03)1.02 (0.97–1.07)1.01 (0.99–1.03)1.03 (0.98–1.09)
    Child’s insurance status
     Insured all yearb1.001.001.001.00
     Partial year insurance1.04 (1.01–1.06)c1.11 (1.06–1.18)c1.04 (1.01–1.06)c1.10 (1.03–1.17)c
     Full year uninsured1.05 (1.02–1.08)c1.23 (1.15–1.31)c1.05 (1.02–1.08)c1.20 (1.11–1.29)c
    Child health status
     Excellent/very goodb1.001.001.001.00
     Good/fair/poor1.01 (0.99–1.03)0.90 (0.86–0.94)c1.02 (1.00–1.04)0.92 (0.88–0.96)c
    • aRR = adjusted risk ratio; FPL = federal poverty level; USC = usual source of care.

    • Source: 2002–2007 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey-Household Component (MEPS-HC).

    • ↵a The preventive counseling services include MEPS-HC items that asked parents whether a doctor or health care clinician had advised their child about the importance of (1) healthy eating, (2) routine exercise, (3) use of care safety seats/booster seats/seat belts, and (4) use of a helmet while riding a tricycle/bicycle.

    • ↵b Reference group.

    • ↵c P <.05.

Additional Files

  • Tables
  • The Article in Brief

    Parent and Child Usual Source of Care and Children's Receipt of Health Care Services

    Jennifer E. DeVoe, and colleagues

    Background Children with a usual source of health care (USC) have better access to care, which may contribute to better health. This study examines whether children's access to health care services is associated with their parents' USC status.

    What This Study Found In this study, more than 18% of children have no parent in the household with a USC. Children who have a USC, but whose parents do not, are more likely to have unmet medical needs, including an insurance coverage gap, an unmet medical or prescription need, and no yearly dental visits.

    Implications

    • The authors call for policy changes to improve access to a usual source of care for all family members.
    • The authors suggest that clinicians develop practice-based interventions to assist parents and children in finding stable usual sources of care.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Annals of Family Medicine: 9 (6)
The Annals of Family Medicine: 9 (6)
Vol. 9, Issue 6
November/December 2011
  • 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.
Parent and Child Usual Source of Care and Children’s Receipt of Health Care Services
(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.
6 + 0 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Parent and Child Usual Source of Care and Children’s Receipt of Health Care Services
Jennifer E. DeVoe, Carrie J. Tillotson, Lorraine S. Wallace, Heather Angier, Matthew J. Carlson, Rachel Gold
The Annals of Family Medicine Nov 2011, 9 (6) 504-513; DOI: 10.1370/afm.1300

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Get Permissions
Share
Parent and Child Usual Source of Care and Children’s Receipt of Health Care Services
Jennifer E. DeVoe, Carrie J. Tillotson, Lorraine S. Wallace, Heather Angier, Matthew J. Carlson, Rachel Gold
The Annals of Family Medicine Nov 2011, 9 (6) 504-513; DOI: 10.1370/afm.1300
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Acknowledgements
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Exploration of the psychometric properties of the Person-Centred Primary Care Measure (PCPCM) in a Chinese primary care population in Hong Kong: a cross-sectional validation study
  • A New Comprehensive Measure of High-Value Aspects of Primary Care
  • In This Issue: Health Care Policy Affects the Lives of Real People
  • Where the United States Falls Down and How We Might Stand Up
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Family-Based Interventions to Promote Weight Management in Adults: Results From a Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial in India
  • Teamwork Among Primary Care Staff to Achieve Regular Follow-Up of Chronic Patients
  • Shared Decision Making Among Racially and/or Ethnically Diverse Populations in Primary Care: A Scoping Review of Barriers and Facilitators
Show more Original Research

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • Person groups:
    • Children's health
    • Vulnerable populations
    • Family
  • Methods:
    • Quantitative methods
  • Other research types:
    • Health policy
    • Health services
  • Core values of primary care:
    • Access

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