BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:

Developmental-behavioral conditions are common, affecting ∼15% of US children. The prevalence and complexity of these conditions are increasing despite long wait times and a limited pipeline of new providers. We surveyed a convenience sample of the developmental-behavioral pediatric (DBP) workforce to determine current practices, workforce trends, and future needs.

METHODS:

An electronic survey was e-mailed to 1568 members of the American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics and Council on Children with Disabilities, the Society for Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, and the National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners Developmental and Behavioral Mental Health Special Interest Group.

RESULTS:

The response rate was 48%. There were 411 fellowship-trained physicians, 147 nonfellowship-trained physicians, and 125 nurse practitioners; 61% were women, 79% were white, and 5% were Hispanic. Physicians had a mean of 29 years since medical school graduation, and one-third planned to retire in 3 to 5 years. Nurse practitioners were earlier in their careers. Respondents reported long wait times for new appointments, clinician burnout, increased patient complexity and up to 50% additional time spent per visit in nonreimbursed clinical-care activities. Female subspecialists spent more time per visit in billable and nonbillable components of clinical care.

CONCLUSIONS:

The DBP workforce struggles to meet current service demands, with long waits for appointments, increased complexity, and high volumes of nonreimbursed care. Sex-based practice differences must be considered in future planning. The viability of the DBP subspecialty requires strategies to maintain and expand the workforce, improve clinical efficiency, and prevent burnout.

What’s Known on This Subject:

Despite the high prevalence of developmental-behavioral pediatric (DBP) conditions, there is a shortage of DBP specialists. This results in long wait times and increased demands on primary-care providers to manage complex developmental-behavioral conditions.

What This Study Adds:

The 2015 DBP workforce survey was used to identify key trends and critical viability challenges that must be addressed: increasing service demand, patient complexity, and nonreimbursed care; provider burnout; a limited pipeline; and an aging workforce.

Developmental-behavioral (DB) conditions are common and affect ∼15% of children in the United States.1,2 However, despite knowledge that prevention, early identification, and treatment can significantly reduce morbidity and improve long-term outcomes,3,5 there are multiple barriers to providing and accessing developmental-behavioral pediatric (DBP) care.1,6,7 In a recent American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) periodic member survey, for example, 65% of respondents said they lacked the training to treat mental health problems; additional barriers to practice included time required and poor reimbursement, whereas barriers to access included a lack of available specialists.8 DBP care is currently provided by a range of clinicians, including general and specialist pediatricians. Primary-care pediatricians conduct developmental screening and identify and manage common DB conditions. Typically, children with more complex needs are referred to DBP subspecialists; however, some general pediatricians also treat complex DB conditions.9,10 In addition, nurse practitioners (NPs) are increasingly specialized in DBP care.11,13 

To guide future DBP workforce development and resource planning, the AAP, the Society for Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics (SDBP), and the National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners Developmental and Behavioral Mental Health Special Interest Group (NAPNAP DBMH SIG) collaborated to develop and administer an updated survey of the DBP workforce to determine the following: which professionals comprise the current workforce, how these increasingly prevalent and complex conditions are managed, and what challenges and trends need to be considered.

The previous (1997) DBP workforce survey was administered to physicians before the establishment of DBP and neurodevelopmental disabilities (NDD) subspecialty boards.9 Given the interprofessional nature of DBP practice14 and the limited DBP subspecialist pipeline, this survey was used to examine a broader workforce, including DBP and NDD fellowship–trained physicians, general pediatricians who provide DBP care, NPs, and psychologists. We also examined other pediatric workforce trends, including the increasing proportion of female providers and nonreimbursed time.15,18 In this article, we report on the DBP medical workforce and do not include data on psychology or trainee respondents.

The AAP Division of Workforce and Medical Education Policy conducted the 2012–2015 workforce survey in collaboration with 20 AAP sections, including the Section on Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics (SODBP). The survey included a 44-item, standard questionnaire that was completed by all respondents regardless of subspecialty to capture pertinent data related to training, clinical practice, and demographic characteristics. Representatives of the SODBP, SDBP, and NAPNAP DBMH SIG worked closely with AAP staff to develop an additional 23 questions that addressed the time spent in DBP, general pediatric clinical care, and other professional activities; types of conditions treated; and constraints to providing DBP care. Two open-ended questions were asked about general comments and changes anticipated in practice over the next 3 to 5 years. The SODBP, the AAP Council on Children with Disabilities (COCWD), and SDBP leadership pilot tested the survey, and questions were adjusted for clarity (Supplemental Information).

Eligible respondents were identified via membership e-mail lists. After the removal of duplicate addresses, respondents were e-mailed an invitation and link to complete the survey. Discipline-specific instructions were provided to clarify how to respond to items (eg, professional school versus medical school). No identifying information was linked to the surveys. The initial e-mails were sent in May 2015 to 1568 members of the SODBP, COCWD, SDBP, and NAPNAP DBMH SIG. E-mail reminders were sent every 3 weeks directly from SurveyMonkey to nonresponders up to a total of 5 times. The survey was closed in September 2015. The AAP institutional review board provided exemption approval for the project.

Data analysis was performed by using SPSS 18.0 (IBM SPSS Statistics, IBM Corporation).19 Respondents who spend >50% of their time in training and psychology respondents were excluded from the analysis. Physician respondents who indicated DBP and/or NDD fellowship training were characterized as subspecialists; those without fellowship training were classified as generalists. Respondents who endorsed their primary practice site as a medical school, hospital, and/or parent university were characterized as academic. Only respondents who answered yes to the question, “Do you assess or treat patients for developmental or behavioral concerns?” were queried about clinical practice characteristics. Descriptive statistics, including frequency distributions and measures of central tendency, were summarized for all responses to the survey. The statistical significance of bivariate relationships was tested by using χ2 or t tests as appropriate.

Qualitative methods were used to analyze 736 total responses to 2 open-ended questions that were used to elicit general comments and changes that were anticipated in practice in the next 3 to 5 years. Two authors (N.B. and B.N.) independently coded the first 50 responses to identify potential themes. These were then jointly reviewed, and a preliminary coding scheme was developed.20,21 Differences were resolved through discussion. The remaining open-ended responses were reviewed and coded by 1 author using the established coding scheme (N.B.). Final coding and exemplar quotes were reviewed by all the authors.

The overall response rate was 48% and included 558 non-trainee physicians and 125 NPs; e-mail lists did not specify disciplines, precluding further analyses of the response rate.

The 558 non-trainee physicians included 411 subspecialists who were fellowship trained in DBP (n = 345), NDD (n = 43), or both (n = 23) and 147 generalists with no fellowship training. Of the fellowship-trained respondents, 318 had board certification (DBP [n = 261], NDD [n = 36], or both [n = 21]); 2 respondents without fellowship training reported NDD certification. Physicians were 59% women, 77% white, and 6% Hispanic, with a mean of 29 years since graduation from medical school (Table 1). Most respondents engaged in a range of professional activities, with patient care making up the major percentage (mean = 65%) of time (Table 2).

TABLE 1

General Demographics

All Physicians, N (%)DBP- and/or NDD-Trained Specialty Physicians, N (%)Non–DBP- and/or NDD-Trained Generalist Physicians, N (%)NPs, N (%)
Total 558 411 147 125 
Sex     
 Female 298 (59.0) 233 (61.5) 65 (51.6) 110 (98.2) 
 Male 207 (41.0) 146 (38.5) 61 (48.4) 2 (1.8) 
Race     
 White 428 (76.7) 320 (77.9) 108 (73.5) 101 (91.0) 
 Black/African American 10 (1.8) 9 (2.2) 1 (0.7) 2 (1.8) 
 Asian 47 (8.4) 38 (9.2) 9 (6.1) 4 (3.6) 
 American Indian or Alaska native 5 (0.9) 2 (0.5) 3 (2.0) 0 (0) 
 Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0.9) 
 Other 13 (2.3) 9 (2.2) 4 (2.7) 3 (2.7) 
Ethnicity     
 Hispanic or Latino 30 (5.9) 26 (6.8) 4 (3.2) 0 (0) 
 Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) 
Years since medical and/or professional school graduation 29 (11.9) 28.2 (11.9) 31.3 (11.7) 16.5 (12.2) 
All Physicians, N (%)DBP- and/or NDD-Trained Specialty Physicians, N (%)Non–DBP- and/or NDD-Trained Generalist Physicians, N (%)NPs, N (%)
Total 558 411 147 125 
Sex     
 Female 298 (59.0) 233 (61.5) 65 (51.6) 110 (98.2) 
 Male 207 (41.0) 146 (38.5) 61 (48.4) 2 (1.8) 
Race     
 White 428 (76.7) 320 (77.9) 108 (73.5) 101 (91.0) 
 Black/African American 10 (1.8) 9 (2.2) 1 (0.7) 2 (1.8) 
 Asian 47 (8.4) 38 (9.2) 9 (6.1) 4 (3.6) 
 American Indian or Alaska native 5 (0.9) 2 (0.5) 3 (2.0) 0 (0) 
 Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0.9) 
 Other 13 (2.3) 9 (2.2) 4 (2.7) 3 (2.7) 
Ethnicity     
 Hispanic or Latino 30 (5.9) 26 (6.8) 4 (3.2) 0 (0) 
 Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) 
Years since medical and/or professional school graduation 29 (11.9) 28.2 (11.9) 31.3 (11.7) 16.5 (12.2) 

Missing values are excluded from the calculation of percentages.

TABLE 2

Professional Practice Characteristics

All Physicians (N = 558)DBP- and/or NDD-Trained Specialty Physicians (N = 411)Non–DBP- and/or NDD-Trained Generalist Physicians (N = 147)NPs (N = 125)
Academic main employment site, N (%) 223 (40.0) 176 (42.8) 47 (32.0) 33 (30.3) 
Time in professional activities (proportion engaged in each activity and average time spent by those engaged in the activity)         
 Activity Engaged, % Average time, % (SD) Engaged, % Average time, % (SD) Engaged, % Average time, % (SD) Engaged, % Average time, % (SD) 
  Direct patient care 87 65 (26) 88 65 (26) 82 66 (28) 86 73 (27) 
  Administration 66 19 (18) 66 19 (18) 64 19 (19) 42 19 (19) 
  Teaching 68 13 (14) 71 12 (14) 61 14 (16) 45 24 (26) 
  Clinical research 34 15 (19) 36 16 (21) 28 10 (13) 19 15 (17) 
  Basic science research 6 (3) 5 (1) 8 (3) 3 (3) 
  Health services research 12 20 (22) 10 22 (23) 17 16 (20) 11 (11) 
  Committee work, consulting 43 11 (15) 42 10 (11) 43 14 (21) 45 12 (15) 
  Other 35 (38) 33 (36) 41 (42) 16 (14) 
All Physicians (N = 558)DBP- and/or NDD-Trained Specialty Physicians (N = 411)Non–DBP- and/or NDD-Trained Generalist Physicians (N = 147)NPs (N = 125)
Academic main employment site, N (%) 223 (40.0) 176 (42.8) 47 (32.0) 33 (30.3) 
Time in professional activities (proportion engaged in each activity and average time spent by those engaged in the activity)         
 Activity Engaged, % Average time, % (SD) Engaged, % Average time, % (SD) Engaged, % Average time, % (SD) Engaged, % Average time, % (SD) 
  Direct patient care 87 65 (26) 88 65 (26) 82 66 (28) 86 73 (27) 
  Administration 66 19 (18) 66 19 (18) 64 19 (19) 42 19 (19) 
  Teaching 68 13 (14) 71 12 (14) 61 14 (16) 45 24 (26) 
  Clinical research 34 15 (19) 36 16 (21) 28 10 (13) 19 15 (17) 
  Basic science research 6 (3) 5 (1) 8 (3) 3 (3) 
  Health services research 12 20 (22) 10 22 (23) 17 16 (20) 11 (11) 
  Committee work, consulting 43 11 (15) 42 10 (11) 43 14 (21) 45 12 (15) 
  Other 35 (38) 33 (36) 41 (42) 16 (14) 

Missing values are excluded from the calculation of percentages.

DBP clinical-practice characteristics were examined in the 475 physicians and 105 NPs who responded yes to the question, “Do you assess or treat patients for developmental or behavioral concerns?” (Table 3). Respondents indicated their overall full-time equivalent (FTE) worked, with the example that half-time would be 0.50. Questions about number of patients seen and time spent in visits were specific to DBP practice; questions about FTEs, wait times, and the number of clinical sessions were not. A majority of physicians worked full-time (mean = 48 hours per week; mean FTE = 0.9). Total clinical duties comprised, on average, 5.1 half-day sessions per week, in which respondents saw a mean number of 6.2 new and 15.5 established DB patients per week. Generalists reported similar FTEs and numbers of clinical sessions and new DB visits per week but a higher number of return DB visits (17.3 vs 14.9) compared with subspecialists (Table 3). Physicians indicated long wait times: 50% reported ≥8 weeks for nonurgent new appointments. Generalists reported shorter wait times than subspecialists and were more likely to offer same-day appointments. Constraints to seeing more patients included paperwork (63%), the clinical complexity of referrals (46%), and a lack of clinical support (46%), with subspecialists being more likely to report administrative duties (39%) and generalists being more likely to report a lack of training (22%; Table 3). More than one-third of respondents, primarily those with more years in practice and those in specialty practice, indicated plans to retire fully (11%) or partially (22%) in 3 to 5 years (Table 3).

TABLE 3

Clinical Practice Characteristics of Respondents Who Reported Treating DBP Patients

SpecialtyAll Physicians (N = 475), Mean (SD)DBP- and/or NDD-Trained Specialty Physicians (N = 359), Mean (SD)Non–DBP- and/or NDD-Trained Generalist Physicians (N = 116), Mean (SD)NPs (N = 105), Mean (SD)
FTE 0.9 (0.4) 0.9 (0.3) 1.0 (0.5) 0.9 (0.5) 
Hours per wk 48.0 (15.1) 47.7 (14.8) 49.0 (16.2) 40.3 (11.4) 
Half-day sessions per wk 5.1 (2.9) 5.1 (2.8) 5.2 (3.2) 4.1 (2.8) 
New DBP visits per wk 6.2 (7.5) 6.2 (4.9) 6.2 (12.7) 4.5 (3.9) 
Return DBP visits per wk 15.5 (14.0) 14.9 (11.7) 17.3 (19.4) 17.6 (15.3) 
No. engaged in primary care N = 151 (32%) N = 77 (21%) N = 74 (64%) N = 39 (37%) 
% of time in primary carea 55.0 (38.0) 40.8 (34.8) 69.7 (35.6) 65.5 (31.8) 
No. engaged in specialty care N = 408 (86%) N = 343 (96%) N = 65 (56%) N = 86 (82%) 
% of time in specialty careb 90.8 (21.0) 93.1 (18.7) 78.7 (27.6) 85.5 (25.3) 
Time spent in new and return visits, min 
 Initial visit billable 83.8 (50.5) 91.2 (47.7) 61.1 (52.0) 68.1 (33.9) 
 Initial visit nonbillable 50.6 (47.6) 55.3 (51.0) 36.0 (31.0) 36.3 (31.0) 
 Return visit billable 39.7 (26.9) 43.0 (28.6) 29.3 (17.1) 40.0 (34.6) 
 Return visit nonbillable 22.8 (21.8) 23.8 (21.9) 19.6 (21.2) 25.4 (38.3) 
Time to new, nonurgent appointment N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) 
 Same day 22 (4.7) 9 (2.5) 13 (11.5) 10 (10) 
 >8 up to 16 wk to new appointment 100 (21.3) 87 (24.4) 13 (11.5) 15 (15) 
 >16 wk to new appointment 136 (29.0) 129 (36.2) 7 (6.2) 15 (15) 
Constraints to seeing more patients 
 Administrative duties 174 (37) 140 (39) 34 (29) 23 (22) 
 Paperwork 300 (63) 244 (68) 56 (48) 48 (46) 
 Teaching and/or research 164 (34) 141 (39) 23 (20) 20 (19) 
 Telephone consultations 108 (23) 83 (23) 25 (22) 25 (24) 
 Inadequate reimbursement 167 (35) 130 (36) 37 (32) 32 (31) 
 Clinical complexity 221 (46) 174 (48) 47 (40) 57 (54) 
 Lack of training 33 (7) 8 (2) 25 (22) 24 (23) 
 Lack of clinical support by other professionals 219 (46) 169 (47) 50 (43) 54 (51) 
 RVU or billing expectations 131 (28) 101 (28) 30 (26) 45 (43) 
 Set appointment time slots 120 (25) 85 (24) 35 (30) 46 (44) 
Plan to fully or partially retire in next 3–5 y 158 (34) 112 (32) 46 (41) 19 (19) 
SpecialtyAll Physicians (N = 475), Mean (SD)DBP- and/or NDD-Trained Specialty Physicians (N = 359), Mean (SD)Non–DBP- and/or NDD-Trained Generalist Physicians (N = 116), Mean (SD)NPs (N = 105), Mean (SD)
FTE 0.9 (0.4) 0.9 (0.3) 1.0 (0.5) 0.9 (0.5) 
Hours per wk 48.0 (15.1) 47.7 (14.8) 49.0 (16.2) 40.3 (11.4) 
Half-day sessions per wk 5.1 (2.9) 5.1 (2.8) 5.2 (3.2) 4.1 (2.8) 
New DBP visits per wk 6.2 (7.5) 6.2 (4.9) 6.2 (12.7) 4.5 (3.9) 
Return DBP visits per wk 15.5 (14.0) 14.9 (11.7) 17.3 (19.4) 17.6 (15.3) 
No. engaged in primary care N = 151 (32%) N = 77 (21%) N = 74 (64%) N = 39 (37%) 
% of time in primary carea 55.0 (38.0) 40.8 (34.8) 69.7 (35.6) 65.5 (31.8) 
No. engaged in specialty care N = 408 (86%) N = 343 (96%) N = 65 (56%) N = 86 (82%) 
% of time in specialty careb 90.8 (21.0) 93.1 (18.7) 78.7 (27.6) 85.5 (25.3) 
Time spent in new and return visits, min 
 Initial visit billable 83.8 (50.5) 91.2 (47.7) 61.1 (52.0) 68.1 (33.9) 
 Initial visit nonbillable 50.6 (47.6) 55.3 (51.0) 36.0 (31.0) 36.3 (31.0) 
 Return visit billable 39.7 (26.9) 43.0 (28.6) 29.3 (17.1) 40.0 (34.6) 
 Return visit nonbillable 22.8 (21.8) 23.8 (21.9) 19.6 (21.2) 25.4 (38.3) 
Time to new, nonurgent appointment N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) 
 Same day 22 (4.7) 9 (2.5) 13 (11.5) 10 (10) 
 >8 up to 16 wk to new appointment 100 (21.3) 87 (24.4) 13 (11.5) 15 (15) 
 >16 wk to new appointment 136 (29.0) 129 (36.2) 7 (6.2) 15 (15) 
Constraints to seeing more patients 
 Administrative duties 174 (37) 140 (39) 34 (29) 23 (22) 
 Paperwork 300 (63) 244 (68) 56 (48) 48 (46) 
 Teaching and/or research 164 (34) 141 (39) 23 (20) 20 (19) 
 Telephone consultations 108 (23) 83 (23) 25 (22) 25 (24) 
 Inadequate reimbursement 167 (35) 130 (36) 37 (32) 32 (31) 
 Clinical complexity 221 (46) 174 (48) 47 (40) 57 (54) 
 Lack of training 33 (7) 8 (2) 25 (22) 24 (23) 
 Lack of clinical support by other professionals 219 (46) 169 (47) 50 (43) 54 (51) 
 RVU or billing expectations 131 (28) 101 (28) 30 (26) 45 (43) 
 Set appointment time slots 120 (25) 85 (24) 35 (30) 46 (44) 
Plan to fully or partially retire in next 3–5 y 158 (34) 112 (32) 46 (41) 19 (19) 

Missing values are excluded from the calculation of percentages. RVU, Relative Value Unit.

a

Among those engaged in primary care.

b

Among those engaged in specialty care.

Among subspecialists, women had fewer years in practice (25.5 vs 32.5; P < .001) and spent less of their time in administrative duties (17% vs 22%; P = .03) and more time in subspecialty practice (95.1% vs 88.8%; P = .004). There were no differences by sex in FTE, clinical sessions, DB visits per week, academic employment, or time spent in clinical, teaching, or research duties. After controlling for years in practice, there were no significant differences by sex in planned 3- to 5-year retirement (Table 4).

TABLE 4

Comparison of DBP- and/or NDD-Trained Physician Responses by Sex

VariableWomen (N = 233)Men (N = 146)P (95% Confidence Interval)a
N (%)N (%)
Academic main employment site 107 (45.9) 60 (41.1) .395; χ2 = 0.85 
 Mean (SD)b Mean (SD)  
Years since medical school graduation 25.5 (11.0) 32.5 (12.2) <.001 (4.6 to 9.4) 
Hours per wk 45.4 (15.5) 48.1 (16.7) .11 (−0.6 to 6.1) 
% of time in primary care 36.5 (36.0) 49.4 (34.1) .11 (−3.0 to 28.7) 
 Women, N = 40 (17%)    
 Men, N = 38 (26%)    
% of time in subspecialty care 95.1 (15.7) 88.8 (23.7) .004 (−10.5 to −2.1) 
 Women, N = 209 (90%)    
 Men, N = 129 (88%)    
% of time in professional activities (among those engaged in the activity) 
 Direct patient care 66.5 (25.5) 63.0 (26.8) .23 (−9.1 to 2.2) 
 Administration 17.0 (17.5) 22.0 (18.6) .03 (0.6 to 9.5) 
 Teaching 11.7 (13.2) 12.7 (12.2) .49 (−2.0 to 4.2) 
 Clinical research 17.1 (21.9) 16.6 (19.9) .90 (−7.7 to 6.7) 
 Basic science research 4.3 (1.1) 5.0 (0) .49 (−2.1 to 3.4) 
 Health services research 20.6 (22.9) 23.2 (24.4) .73 (−12.5 to 17.7) 
 Committee work, consulting 9.6 (12.8) 9.9 (9.6) .86 (−3.4 to 4.0) 
 Other 39.1 (39.1) 20.7 (30.5) .17 (−44.7 to 8.1) 
 Women (N = 216)a Men (N = 136)a  
FTEc 0.9 (0.4) 0.9 (0.3) .83 (−0.1 to 0.1) 
Sessions per wk 5.1 (2.7) 5.0 (3.1) .64 (−0.8 to 0.5) 
New DBP visits per wk 6.2 (4.3) 6.2 (5.7) .99 (−1.0 to 1.1) 
Return DBP visits per wk 15.1 (11.1) 14.4 (12.9) .61 (−3.3 to 1.9) 
Time spent in new and return visits, min 
 Initial visit billable 95.7 (52.0) 83.5 (40.0) .02 (−22.6 to −1.8) 
 Initial visit nonbillable 61.0 (56.4) 45.8 (40.4) .007 (−26.3 to −4.2) 
 Return visit billable 45.0 (33.9) 39.8 (17.3) .10 (−11.4 to 1.0) 
 Return visit nonbillable 25.9 (24.1) 20.4 (17.9) .02 (−10.2 to −0.7) 
Plan to fully or partially retire in next 3–5 y N (%) N (%)  
 1–21 y since graduating 4 (4.8) 1 (3.4) .767; χ2 = 0.088 
 22–34 y since graduating 17 (20.7) 9 (21.4) .928; χ2 = 0.008 
 35–63 y since graduating 34 (73.9) 46 (71.9) .813; χ2 = 0.056 
VariableWomen (N = 233)Men (N = 146)P (95% Confidence Interval)a
N (%)N (%)
Academic main employment site 107 (45.9) 60 (41.1) .395; χ2 = 0.85 
 Mean (SD)b Mean (SD)  
Years since medical school graduation 25.5 (11.0) 32.5 (12.2) <.001 (4.6 to 9.4) 
Hours per wk 45.4 (15.5) 48.1 (16.7) .11 (−0.6 to 6.1) 
% of time in primary care 36.5 (36.0) 49.4 (34.1) .11 (−3.0 to 28.7) 
 Women, N = 40 (17%)    
 Men, N = 38 (26%)    
% of time in subspecialty care 95.1 (15.7) 88.8 (23.7) .004 (−10.5 to −2.1) 
 Women, N = 209 (90%)    
 Men, N = 129 (88%)    
% of time in professional activities (among those engaged in the activity) 
 Direct patient care 66.5 (25.5) 63.0 (26.8) .23 (−9.1 to 2.2) 
 Administration 17.0 (17.5) 22.0 (18.6) .03 (0.6 to 9.5) 
 Teaching 11.7 (13.2) 12.7 (12.2) .49 (−2.0 to 4.2) 
 Clinical research 17.1 (21.9) 16.6 (19.9) .90 (−7.7 to 6.7) 
 Basic science research 4.3 (1.1) 5.0 (0) .49 (−2.1 to 3.4) 
 Health services research 20.6 (22.9) 23.2 (24.4) .73 (−12.5 to 17.7) 
 Committee work, consulting 9.6 (12.8) 9.9 (9.6) .86 (−3.4 to 4.0) 
 Other 39.1 (39.1) 20.7 (30.5) .17 (−44.7 to 8.1) 
 Women (N = 216)a Men (N = 136)a  
FTEc 0.9 (0.4) 0.9 (0.3) .83 (−0.1 to 0.1) 
Sessions per wk 5.1 (2.7) 5.0 (3.1) .64 (−0.8 to 0.5) 
New DBP visits per wk 6.2 (4.3) 6.2 (5.7) .99 (−1.0 to 1.1) 
Return DBP visits per wk 15.1 (11.1) 14.4 (12.9) .61 (−3.3 to 1.9) 
Time spent in new and return visits, min 
 Initial visit billable 95.7 (52.0) 83.5 (40.0) .02 (−22.6 to −1.8) 
 Initial visit nonbillable 61.0 (56.4) 45.8 (40.4) .007 (−26.3 to −4.2) 
 Return visit billable 45.0 (33.9) 39.8 (17.3) .10 (−11.4 to 1.0) 
 Return visit nonbillable 25.9 (24.1) 20.4 (17.9) .02 (−10.2 to −0.7) 
Plan to fully or partially retire in next 3–5 y N (%) N (%)  
 1–21 y since graduating 4 (4.8) 1 (3.4) .767; χ2 = 0.088 
 22–34 y since graduating 17 (20.7) 9 (21.4) .928; χ2 = 0.008 
 35–63 y since graduating 34 (73.9) 46 (71.9) .813; χ2 = 0.056 
a

Missing values are excluded from the calculation of percentages.

b

Only respondents who answered yes to “Do you assess or treat patients with DB concerns?”

c

Full Time Equivalent.

When asked to estimate the total number of billable and/or face-to-face and nonbillable and/or nonface-to-face minutes spent during initial and return DB visits, respondents documented spending up to 50% additional time outside of the visit in care activities for which they could not bill. New visits comprised a mean of 84 minutes in billable and 51 minutes in nonbillable time, and return visits comprised a mean of 40 minutes in billable and 23 minutes in nonbillable time (Table 3). DBP and/or NDD subspecialists spent more time than generalists in billable and nonbillable time for all visit types (Table 3). Women spent significantly more time than men in billable and nonbillable minutes (Table 4).

The 125 NP respondents were primarily women (98%) and non-Hispanic white (91%) and included DBP specialists, mental health specialists, primary-care providers, and faculty in doctoral nursing programs. NPs had fewer years in practice than physicians (16.5 vs 29 years; Table 1), and only 19% planned to retire in the next 3 to 5 years (Table 3). Most practiced in nonacademic settings (70%), and those who provided direct clinical care spent an average of 73% of their time in that activity, the second-largest proportion of time was spent in teaching (24%), and the remainder was divided among administrative and research activities (Table 2). Most NPs spent the majority of their time providing subspecialty care (82%). On average, NPs worked full-time (mean FTE = 0.9) and completed 4.1 half-day clinical sessions, in which they saw a mean of 4.5 new and 18 established patients per week (Table 3). In comparison with physicians, NPs spent more of their time in direct clinical care and teaching but had fewer clinical sessions per week despite similar FTEs. NPs had shorter wait times for new appointments and more frequently offered same-day appointments (Tables 2 and 3).

Constraints to seeing more patients included clinical complexity (54%), a lack of clinical support (51%), and paperwork (46%). NPs, similar to generalist physicians, were more likely to report a lack of training (23%) and were less likely to report teaching and/or research constraints (19%). NPs also reported spending an additional 54% of their time in nonbillable activities for new and return visits (Table 3).

In open-ended responses, respondents deemed DBP practice rewarding but highlighted significant barriers to providing DBP care, including a declining workforce, inadequate reimbursement, high demands for care coordination, a lack of access to community services, and a need for more training to manage complex patients. Respondents indicated that the current situation is not sustainable and described burnout because of feeling overwhelmed and undervalued. Suggested solutions included training primary-care providers and NPs to expand the workforce, improving clinical efficiency, adjusting practice models to include more collaboration between primary-care and community agencies, and the use of telehealth (Table 5).

TABLE 5

Open-Ended Responses Regarding Barriers to Care: Themes, Subthemes, and Exemplar Quotes

Theme and/or SubthemeExemplar Quotes
Provision of DBP care  
 Limited DBP workforce “There are not enough pediatricians training in [DBP], and I would like to see more done to provide incentives for pediatricians to specialize in this underserved field.” 
“There needs to be another pathway to DBP eligibility than the traditional 3-y fellowship after residency.” 
 Need for more training “Despite learning a lot from my experience, I still often feel unprepared for the issues and often lack the support I need to provide the care needed.” 
“Most of what I have learned was on the job. I do not feel that residency prepared me very well for something I spend a lot of time doing right now.” 
 Poor access to specialists “Due to [the] shortage of psychiatrists, we are being asked to see and manage these complex patients with seizures, developmental issues, ADHD, anxiety, depression, tics, OCD, bipolar [disorder], etc.” 
“The long waits for children at the mental health centers [have] encouraged our increased involvement in evaluation and treatment in primary care for those without severe psychiatric disease.” 
 Problems accessing services “Insurance does not cover behavioral therapy. There are no behavioral therapists who take Medicaid in our immediate area.” 
“[It’s really] challenging to make a diagnosis but then have limited resources to refer [a] patient to; [an] incredible amount of time [is] spent on problem solving and advocating for your patient, which is complicated by little to no care coordination staff.” 
Workforce viability  
 Inadequate reimbursement “Reimbursement remains problematic. The time it takes to do a good job, while appreciated by the patient[ and/or] family, is not appreciated by administration. Without procedures, it is difficult to afford ancillary support.” 
“[It is very] difficult to find a position [in which] I can both see Medicaid patients and stay in practice.” 
“Much of the work involved is draining and not billable.” 
 Not sustainable “[I am deeply] concerned about the sustainability of my subspecialty due to the tremendous clinical, nonbillable demands and the poor reimbursement for the work we do despite the overwhelming need for our services.” 
“Low reimbursement for DBP services makes it nearly impossible to sustain a clinical practice and have adequate quality of life.” 
 Undervalued “I love what I do, but I am exhausted and disheartened [by] the lack of valuation by academic institutions for the art of medicine [and] the human side of medicine.” 
“There is real need for administrators and insurance companies to learn how valuable and how important it is.” 
“To sum it up: overworked and undervalued.” 
 Burnout “The complexity of our patients and the inability of our communities [and/or] systems to meet their needs make this job overwhelming. The expectations of academic medicine, which require productivity standards that do not include time for staffing, training, QI, or paperwork, are leading to burnout and frustration.” 
“Something needs to change, or a generation of physicians will be retiring before we are 50 [y old] and seeking other careers with less stress and higher salaries.” 
Potential solutions  
 Changes in practice “Transition out straightforward cases to maintain access, limit to <18 y olds, and weed out true psychiatric referrals to reduce wait times.” 
  “New models of seeing patients for brief triage visits to plan who needs longer assessments.” 
“Training to become more efficient with time.” 
“We will be having more satellite clinics around the state.” 
 Adding providers “NPs are underutilized in [DBP care]. This is a way to improve access for patients.” 
 Increasing collaboration “More collaboration with community mental health, schools, and other community children’s agencies.” 
“Greater support to primary-care [pediatricians] to allow them to take care of children with complex conditions.” 
 Using telehealth “More telehealth services for rural areas of the state.” 
Theme and/or SubthemeExemplar Quotes
Provision of DBP care  
 Limited DBP workforce “There are not enough pediatricians training in [DBP], and I would like to see more done to provide incentives for pediatricians to specialize in this underserved field.” 
“There needs to be another pathway to DBP eligibility than the traditional 3-y fellowship after residency.” 
 Need for more training “Despite learning a lot from my experience, I still often feel unprepared for the issues and often lack the support I need to provide the care needed.” 
“Most of what I have learned was on the job. I do not feel that residency prepared me very well for something I spend a lot of time doing right now.” 
 Poor access to specialists “Due to [the] shortage of psychiatrists, we are being asked to see and manage these complex patients with seizures, developmental issues, ADHD, anxiety, depression, tics, OCD, bipolar [disorder], etc.” 
“The long waits for children at the mental health centers [have] encouraged our increased involvement in evaluation and treatment in primary care for those without severe psychiatric disease.” 
 Problems accessing services “Insurance does not cover behavioral therapy. There are no behavioral therapists who take Medicaid in our immediate area.” 
“[It’s really] challenging to make a diagnosis but then have limited resources to refer [a] patient to; [an] incredible amount of time [is] spent on problem solving and advocating for your patient, which is complicated by little to no care coordination staff.” 
Workforce viability  
 Inadequate reimbursement “Reimbursement remains problematic. The time it takes to do a good job, while appreciated by the patient[ and/or] family, is not appreciated by administration. Without procedures, it is difficult to afford ancillary support.” 
“[It is very] difficult to find a position [in which] I can both see Medicaid patients and stay in practice.” 
“Much of the work involved is draining and not billable.” 
 Not sustainable “[I am deeply] concerned about the sustainability of my subspecialty due to the tremendous clinical, nonbillable demands and the poor reimbursement for the work we do despite the overwhelming need for our services.” 
“Low reimbursement for DBP services makes it nearly impossible to sustain a clinical practice and have adequate quality of life.” 
 Undervalued “I love what I do, but I am exhausted and disheartened [by] the lack of valuation by academic institutions for the art of medicine [and] the human side of medicine.” 
“There is real need for administrators and insurance companies to learn how valuable and how important it is.” 
“To sum it up: overworked and undervalued.” 
 Burnout “The complexity of our patients and the inability of our communities [and/or] systems to meet their needs make this job overwhelming. The expectations of academic medicine, which require productivity standards that do not include time for staffing, training, QI, or paperwork, are leading to burnout and frustration.” 
“Something needs to change, or a generation of physicians will be retiring before we are 50 [y old] and seeking other careers with less stress and higher salaries.” 
Potential solutions  
 Changes in practice “Transition out straightforward cases to maintain access, limit to <18 y olds, and weed out true psychiatric referrals to reduce wait times.” 
  “New models of seeing patients for brief triage visits to plan who needs longer assessments.” 
“Training to become more efficient with time.” 
“We will be having more satellite clinics around the state.” 
 Adding providers “NPs are underutilized in [DBP care]. This is a way to improve access for patients.” 
 Increasing collaboration “More collaboration with community mental health, schools, and other community children’s agencies.” 
“Greater support to primary-care [pediatricians] to allow them to take care of children with complex conditions.” 
 Using telehealth “More telehealth services for rural areas of the state.” 

ADHD, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; OCD, obsessive-compulsive disorder; QI, quality improvement.

The current study highlights a number of DBP workforce trends that have implications for the sustainability of the specialty and for access to care. Even with pediatric generalists and NPs expanding the workforce, the future pipeline for DBP and/or NDD subspecialists is limited. Among those taking the 2016 subspecialty certification examination for the first time, Developmental-Behavioral Pediatrics had the fourth-smallest number of fellowship trainees but the highest percentage (24.1%) reporting part-time employment across all 14 pediatric subspecialties.22 From 2000 to 2015, the mean number of matched first-year DBP fellows was 31 (range = 19–40).23 The current trainee numbers are not sufficient to match the planned retirement of the 159 physician respondents in the current study, and the actual number of subspecialists who are planning for retirement is likely higher. This trend is consistent with a recent survey of primary-care and subspecialty AAP members aged ≥50 years that indicated increasing plans for part-time work before retirement.24 

Respondents in the current study reported significant practice challenges (including increased referral volume and complexity and high levels of nonreimbursed time) and access challenges (including long wait times and numerous constraints to increasing care). The high level of nonreimbursed clinical care for DB patients is not new. Administrators of the 1997 DBP workforce survey9 noted significant constraints with paperwork and inadequate reimbursement, whereas a more recent survey of 108 SDBP physician members revealed that an additional 58% of time was spent on indirect (nonreimbursed) clinical activities.25 Similar trends were found across pediatrics and medicine. A recent AAP workforce policy statement indicated that primary-care providers spend more time on nonreimbursed activities, such as care coordination, counseling, and paperwork, when caring for complex pediatric patients.6 A survey of adult medical and surgical providers revealed that they spent an additional 2 hours of time for every hour of direct contact with patients. Even during direct clinical encounters, providers spent only 52.9% of their time on face-to-face care and 37% of their time on documentation and desk work.18 

Given the shortage of subspecialists and long waiting lists, there has been a push for primary-care pediatricians to take on more DBP care.10 In the current study, generalist DBP clinicians play a vital role in the DBP workforce, seeing more return patients and having shorter wait times than subspecialists. However, it is not clear if these generalists, a select group with interest in DBP care, are conducting primary management of all their DBP patients. In fact, previous studies reveal that many of those in primary care prefer comanagement with a subspecialist.26 In our survey, we did not address chronic care comanagement, shared care models, the scope of practice or referrals to other specialists.

NPs are part of the pediatric workforce.27 Like generalists, they report shorter wait times for new, nonurgent appointments. In DBP care, they will likely play an increasing role over time given the limited pipeline for DBP fellowship–trained physicians. In this survey, NPs reported fewer clinical sessions per week than physicians despite working similar FTEs. This may be due to respondents who were nursing teaching faculty with lower clinical loads.

Sex trends must also be considered. Those who most recently took the DBP sub-board examination for the first time were primarily women (79%) and were more likely to report working part-time and in academic settings.22 These trends, which impact access to care, are seen across pediatric subspecialties. In a recent survey of specialists enrolled in Maintenance of Certification, women were more likely than men to work part-time (odds ratio = 6.22),28 and in the AAP survey of members aged ≥50 years, women were less likely than men to work past age 65 years.24 In our study, female subspecialists were not more likely to work part-time or in academic settings, and we did not find sex differences in planned retirement after controlling for years in practice. We found no differences in FTEs or the balance of academic activities by sex or years in practice except that those with fewer years in practice spent less of their time in administrative duties. However, women reported spending more time in both billable and nonbillable components of care. Researchers in previous studies have documented that female physicians spend 10% to 29% more time with their patients, engage in more patient-centered interaction, and offer more encouragement and reassurance.29,30 We do not have data to determine if extra time reported by our respondents translated to improved quality of care or patient satisfaction or how time spent related to clinician job satisfaction. In open-ended responses, however, many comments related to frustration with demands for documentation, nonreimbursed care, and clinician burnout. Without information on patient complexity, it is not clear whether more time spent indicates reduced efficiency. It is possible that these sex differences may be reflecting other trends, such as an increasing complexity of referrals. Researchers in the Physician Worklife Study, for example, documented that women had more patients with complex psychosocial problems and reported needing significantly more time than men (36% vs 21%, respectively) to provide quality care for new patients. Women were 1.6 times more likely to report burnout, and this increased with each additional 5 hours per week >40.31 

Solutions to these challenges must be broad and include strategies for workforce expansion and major changes in clinical practice and care models. Workforce expansion must target multiple disciplines and begin much earlier, during high school and college. Graduate training programs have placed a greater emphasis on the inclusion of DBP-specific training to improve residents’ mental health competencies; however, surveys of recently trained pediatricians continue to reveal that Develomental-Behavioral Pediatrics is a weak area in their training.26,32 Among our respondents, 23% of NPs and 22% of generalists indicated a lack of training as a constraint. Efforts to increase the capacity of the current workforce could include continuing education, mentoring, and clinical practicums.

Current practice models are inefficient and unsustainable. New models of care must improve reimbursement, reduce paperwork, and free providers to see more patients. Group treatment models for patient education and counseling could increase capacity.33 DBP specialists need to develop more efficient clinical documentation while supporting billing requirements. Electronic data capture from patients and medical records, the use of templates, and scribes could be piloted.34,35 Comanagement models with the medical home should include supports for care coordination and other time-intensive duties that are part of the nature of DBP care.36 Building partnerships with community agencies and providers remains critical for Developmental-Behavioral Pediatrics, which is a specialty that requires extensive expertise in systems-based care.

Limitations of this study include the use of a convenience sample of those with active membership in ≥1 of the participating societies; results may not be generalizable to the entire DBP workforce. The survey underrepresents NDD specialists and psychologists, and there may be differences in practice patterns, perceived constraints, and patient access specific to these disciplines. Future studies could include additional societies to improve the representation of these groups. The adaptation of physician survey questions for NPs limited our ability to interpret some data related to specific nursing professional roles (eg, teaching faculty versus primary clinicians) and practice sites (eg, DBP or mental health practices).

The response rate of 48% could lead to bias in the results. There may be recall bias among those who chose to complete the survey as well as in demographics, practice characteristics, or perceptions of the current state of the workforce. However, basic demographics are similar to those of the surveyed societies.

The DBP workforce is aging and increasingly female, with many planning for retirement or part-time work. With a limited provider pipeline and increased demands for complex clinical care, the viability of the DBP subspecialty requires strategies to maintain and expand the workforce, improve efficiency, and prevent provider burnout. This will need to be accompanied by simultaneous strategies to support teaching and research innovation, which are required to sustain and advance the field.

     
  • AAP

    American Academy of Pediatrics

  •  
  • COCWD

    Council on Children with Disabilities

  •  
  • DB

    developmental-behavioral

  •  
  • DBP

    developmental-behavioral pediatric

  •  
  • FTE

    full-time equivalent

  •  
  • NAPNAP DBMH SIG

    National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners Developmental and Behavioral Mental Health Special Interest Group

  •  
  • NDD

    neurodevelopmental disabilities

  •  
  • NP

    nurse practitioner

  •  
  • SDBP

    Society for Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics

  •  
  • SODBP

    Section on Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics

Dr Bridgemohan contributed to the conception and design of the study, analysis and interpretation of the data, and drafted the manuscript; Drs DeBattista and Roizen and Ms Paul contributed to the conception and design of the study, analysis and interpretation of the data, and reviewed and revised the manuscript; Dr Bauer contributed to the conception and design of the study, completed the coding and analysis of qualitative data, analysis and interpretation of the data, and drafted the manuscript; Dr Nielsen contributed to the conception and design of the study, completed the coding and analysis of qualitative data, analysis and interpretation of the data, and reviewed and revised the manuscript; Dr Ruch-Ross contributed to the conception and design of the study, conducted the initial analysis, contributed to the interpretation of the data, and reviewed and revised the manuscript; and all authors approved the final manuscript as submitted.

FUNDING: No external funding.

COMPANION PAPER: A companion to this article can be found online at www.pediatrics.org/cgi/doi/10.1542/peds.2017-4132.

We thank the executive committees of the AAP SODBP and COCWD and the Board of the SDBP for their contributions to the development of the survey instrument and review of the article; Nathan Blum, MD, past chair of the SODBP Executive Committee, for his support of this project and key guidance throughout the project; and Carrie Radabaugh, Holly Mulvey, and the AAP staff for their assistance with survey development, administration, and analysis.

1
Boyle
CA
,
Boulet
S
,
Schieve
LA
, et al
.
Trends in the prevalence of developmental disabilities in US children, 1997-2008.
Pediatrics
.
2011
;
127
(
6
):
1034
1042
[PubMed]
2
McMillan
JA
,
Land
M
 Jr
,
Leslie
LK
.
Pediatric residency education and the behavioral and mental health crisis: a call to action.
Pediatrics
.
2017
;
139
(
1
):
e20162141
[PubMed]
3
Garner
AS
,
Shonkoff
JP
;
Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health
;
Committee on Early Childhood, Adoption, and Dependent Care
;
Section on Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics
.
Early childhood adversity, toxic stress, and the role of the pediatrician: translating developmental science into lifelong health.
Pediatrics
.
2012
;
129
(
1
). Available at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/129/1/e224
[PubMed]
4
Shonkoff
JP
,
Garner
AS
;
Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health
;
Committee on Early Childhood, Adoption, and Dependent Care
;
Section on Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics
.
The lifelong effects of early childhood adversity and toxic stress.
Pediatrics
.
2012
;
129
(
1
). Available at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/129/1/e232
[PubMed]
5
Weitzman
C
,
Wegner
L
;
Section on Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics
;
Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health
;
Council on Early Childhood
;
Society for Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics
;
American Academy of Pediatrics
.
Promoting optimal development: screening for behavioral and emotional problems [published correction appears in Pediatrics. 2015;135(5):946].
Pediatrics
.
2015
;
135
(
2
):
384
395
[PubMed]
6
Basco
WT
,
Rimsza
ME
;
Committee on Pediatric Workforce
;
American Academy of Pediatrics
.
Pediatrician workforce policy statement.
Pediatrics
.
2013
;
132
(
2
):
390
397
[PubMed]
7
Bitsko
RH
,
Holbrook
JR
,
Robinson
LR
, et al;
EdS
.
Health care, family, and community factors associated with mental, behavioral, and developmental disorders in early childhood - United States, 2011-2012.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep
.
2016
;
65
(
9
):
221
226
[PubMed]
8
Horwitz
SM
,
Storfer-Isser
A
,
Kerker
BD
, et al
.
Barriers to the identification and management of psychosocial problems: changes from 2004 to 2013.
Acad Pediatr
.
2015
;
15
(
6
):
613
620
[PubMed]
9
Kelly
D
,
Cull
WL
,
Jewett
E
, et al
.
Developmental and behavioral pediatric practice patterns and implications for the workforce: results of the Future of Pediatric Education II Survey of Sections Project.
J Dev Behav Pediatr
.
2003
;
24
(
3
):
180
188
[PubMed]
10
Stein
RE
.
Are we on the right track? Examining the role of developmental behavioral pediatrics.
Pediatrics
.
2015
;
135
(
4
):
589
591
[PubMed]
11
McCarthy
AM
.
Focus on children with behavior problems.
J Pediatr Health Care
.
2016
;
30
(
1
):
1
2
[PubMed]
12
Simpson
TE
,
Condon
E
,
Price
RM
,
Finch
BK
,
Sadler
LS
,
Ordway
MR
.
Demystifying infant mental health: what the primary care provider needs to know.
J Pediatr Health Care
.
2016
;
30
(
1
):
38
48
[PubMed]
13
Van Cleve
SN
.
The role of nurse practitioners in pediatric mental health.
J Pediatr Health Care
.
2013
;
27
(
3
):
162
163
[PubMed]
14
Feldman
HM
,
Sutcliffe
TL
. The history of developmental-behavioral pediatrics. In:
Carey
WB
,
Crocker
AC
,
Coleman
WL
,
Elias
ER
,
Feldman
HM
, eds.
Developmental-Behavioral Pediatrics
.
Philadelphia, PA
:
Saunders
;
2009
:
1
12
15
DeAngelis
C
,
Feigin
R
,
DeWitt
T
, et al
.
Final report of the FOPE II pediatric workforce workgroup.
Pediatrics
.
2000
;
106
(
5
):
1245
1255
[PubMed]
16
Polsky
D
,
Weiner
J
,
Bale
JF
 Jr
,
Ashwal
S
,
Painter
MJ
.
Specialty care by child neurologists: a workforce analysis.
Neurology
.
2005
;
64
(
6
):
942
948
[PubMed]
17
Primack
WA
,
Meyers
KE
,
Kirkwood
SJ
,
Ruch-Ross
HS
,
Radabaugh
CL
,
Greenbaum
LA
.
The US pediatric nephrology workforce: a report commissioned by the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Am J Kidney Dis
.
2015
;
66
(
1
):
33
39
[PubMed]
18
Sinsky
C
,
Colligan
L
,
Li
L
, et al
.
Allocation of physician time in ambulatory practice: a time and motion study in 4 specialties.
Ann Intern Med
.
2016
;
165
(
11
):
753
760
[PubMed]
19
SPSS
.
PASW Statistics for Windows SPSS Inc. 18.0
.
Chicago, IL
:
SPSS Inc
;
2009
20
Creswell
JW
.
Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches
. 3rd ed.
Thousand Oaks, CA
:
Sage Publications, Inc
;
2013
21
Hsieh
HF
,
Shannon
SE
.
Three approaches to qualitative content analysis.
Qual Health Res
.
2005
;
15
(
9
):
1277
1288
[PubMed]
22
American Board of Pediatrics
.
Pediatric Physicians Workforce Data Book 2016-2017
.
Chapel Hill, NC
:
American Board of Pediatrics
;
2017
. Available at: https://www.abp.org/sites/abp/files/pdf/pediatricphysiciansworkforcebook2016-2017.pdf. Accessed September 26, 2017
23
American Board of Pediatrics Inc
.
2015-2016 Workforce Data
.
Chapel Hill, NC
:
American Board of Pediatrics, Inc
;
2016
. Available at: https://www.abp.org/sites/abp/files/pdf/workforcebook.pdf. Accessed September 26, 2017
24
Merline
AC
,
Cull
WL
,
Mulvey
HJ
,
Katcher
AL
.
Patterns of work and retirement among pediatricians aged ≥50 years.
Pediatrics
.
2010
;
125
(
1
):
158
164
[PubMed]
25
Adair
R
,
Perrin
E
,
Hubbard
C
,
Savageau
JA
.
Practice parameters and financial factors impacting developmental-behavioral pediatrics.
J Dev Behav Pediatr
.
2010
;
31
(
6
):
477
484
[PubMed]
26
Freed
GL
,
Dunham
KM
,
Switalski
KE
,
Jones
MD
 Jr
,
McGuinness
GA
;
Research Advisory Committee of the American Board of Pediatrics
.
Recently trained general pediatricians: perspectives on residency training and scope of practice.
Pediatrics
.
2009
;
123
(
suppl 1
):
S38
S43
[PubMed]
27
Freed
GL
,
Dunham
KM
,
Loveland-Cherry
CJ
,
Martyn
KK
;
Research Advisory Committee of the American Board of Pediatrics
.
Pediatric nurse practitioners in the United States: current distribution and recent trends in training.
J Pediatr
.
2010
;
157
(
4
):
589
593, 593.e1
28
Freed
GL
,
Moran
LM
,
Van
KD
,
Leslie
LK
;
Research Advisory Committee of the American Board of Pediatrics
.
Current workforce of pediatric subspecialists in the United States.
Pediatrics
.
2017
;
139
(
5
):
e20163604
[PubMed]
29
Bernzweig
J
,
Takayama
JI
,
Phibbs
C
,
Lewis
C
,
Pantell
RH
.
Gender differences in physician-patient communication. Evidence from pediatric visits.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med
.
1997
;
151
(
6
):
586
591
[PubMed]
30
Roter
DL
,
Hall
JA
,
Aoki
Y
.
Physician gender effects in medical communication: a meta-analytic review.
JAMA
.
2002
;
288
(
6
):
756
764
[PubMed]
31
McMurray
JE
,
Linzer
M
,
Konrad
TR
,
Douglas
J
,
Shugerman
R
,
Nelson
K
;
The SGIM Career Satisfaction Study Group
.
The work lives of women physicians results from the physician work life study.
J Gen Intern Med
.
2000
;
15
(
6
):
372
380
[PubMed]
32
Rosenberg
AA
,
Kamin
C
,
Glicken
AD
,
Jones
MD
 Jr
.
Training gaps for pediatric residents planning a career in primary care: a qualitative and quantitative study.
J Grad Med Educ
.
2011
;
3
(
3
):
309
314
[PubMed]
33
Bauer
NS
,
Szczepaniak
D
,
Sullivan
PD
, et al
.
Group visits to improve pediatric attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder chronic care management.
J Dev Behav Pediatr
.
2015
;
36
(
8
):
553
561
[PubMed]
34
Bergman
DA
,
Beck
A
,
Rahm
AK
.
The use of internet-based technology to tailor well-child care encounters.
Pediatrics
.
2009
;
124
(
1
). Available at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/124/1/e37
[PubMed]
35
Bowens
FM
,
Frye
PA
,
Jones
WA
.
Health information technology: integration of clinical workflow into meaningful use of electronic health records.
Perspect Health Inf Manag
.
2010
;
7
:
1d
[PubMed]
36
Cooley
WC
,
McAllister
JW
,
Sherrieb
K
,
Kuhlthau
K
.
Improved outcomes associated with medical home implementation in pediatric primary care.
Pediatrics
.
2009
;
124
(
1
):
358
364
[PubMed]

Competing Interests

POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: Two authors are employed, one as a consultant (H.S.R-R.) and the other as an employee (L.B.P.), by the American Academy of Pediatrics; the other authors have indicated they have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.

Supplementary data