Global rating of the provider from the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Clinician and Group Survey (CGCAHPS) compared between the two arms at end of study (12 months). The global rating instructions specify: "Using any number from 0 to 10, where 0 is the worst provider possible, and 10 is the best provider possible, what number would you use to rate this provider?"

Although 1135 participants (574 CONV, 561 PCCM) completed at least one of the primary outcome measures, 546 CONV and 535 PCCM participant data were acceptable for statistical analysis for this outcome measure.

The vitality scale score of the Short Form-36 (SF-36) Version 2 Health Survey was compared at the end-of study (12 months) and was derived from the following four questions: "How much of the time during the past 4 weeks… Did you feel full of life?" "Did you have a lot of energy?" "Did you feel worn out?" "Did you feel tired?" The possible responses and point values were: all of the time (1), most of the time (2), some of the time (3), a little of the time (4), and none of the time (5). The scale is transformed to a 0-100 scale, with the lower the score indicating more disability.

Although 1135 participants (574 CONV, 561 PCCM) completed at least one of the primary outcome measures, 540 CONV and 539 PCCM participant data were acceptable for statistical analysis for this outcome measure.

Communication of provider as measured by the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Clinician and Group Survey (CGCAHPS). This comprised "How Well Providers (or Doctors) Communicate with Patients" The ratings for the following four questions were averaged for each participant: "In the last 12 months, how often did this provider explain things in a way that was easy to understand?" "In the last 12 months, how often did this provider listen carefully to you?" "In the last 12 months, how often did this provider show respect for what you had to say?" "In the last 12 months, how often did this provider spend enough time with you?" The responses and point values were: never (1), sometimes (2), usually (3), and always (4).

Although 1135 participants (574 CONV, 561 PCCM) completed at least one of the primary outcome measures, 530 CONV and 525 PCCM participant data were acceptable for statistical analysis for this outcome measure.

Helpfulness of Provider's Use of Computers During a Visit (Effectiveness of technology as measured by the Health Information Technology item set of the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Clinician and Group Survey [CGCAHPS]). This included composite measures of helpfulness of provider's use of computers during a visit. The ratings for the following two questions were averaged for each participant: "During your visits in the last 12 months, was this provider's use of a computer or handheld device helpful to you?" The point values for the responses were: yes, definitely (1), yes, somewhat (2), and no (3). "During your visits in the last 12 months, did this provider's use of a computer or handheld device make it harder or easier for you to talk with him or her?" The point values for the responses were: easier (1), not harder or easier (2), harder (3).

Although 1135 participants (574 CONV, 561 PCCM) completed at least one of the primary outcome measures, 423 CONV and 426 PCCM participant data were acceptable for statistical analysis for this outcome measure.

Helpfulness of Provider's Website in Giving Patient Information About Patient's Care and Tests (Effectiveness of technology as measured by the Health Information Technology item set of the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Clinician and Group Survey [CGCAHPS]). This included composite measures of helpfulness of provider's website in giving information about care and tests. The ratings for the following four questions were averaged for each participant: "In the last 12 months, how often was it easy to find these lab or other test results on the website?" "In the last 12 months, how often were these lab or other test results put on the website as soon as you needed them?" "In the last 12 months, how often were these lab or other test results presented in a way that was easy to understand?" "In the last 12 months, how often were the visit notes easy to understand?" The responses and point values were: never (1), sometimes (2), usually (3), and always (4).

Although 1135 participants (574 CONV, 561 PCCM) completed at least one of the primary outcome measures, 268 CONV and 270 PCCM participant data were acceptable for statistical analysis for this outcome measure.