ArticleJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2013
An additional cause of health care disparities: the variable clinical decisions of primary care doctors.
Article in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Patient and health care provider knowledge of diabetes and diabetic microvascular complications: a comprehensive literature review.Reviews in endocrine & metabolic disorders · 2023Review
- Assessing Provider Bias in General Practitioners' Assessment and Referral of Depressive Patients with Different Migration Backgrounds: Methodological Insights on the Use of a Video-Vignette Study.Community mental health journal · 2020Article
- The association between perceived discrimination in midlife and peripheral neuropathy in a population-based cohort of women: the Study of Women's Health Across the Nation.Annals of epidemiology · 2019Article
- A Comparison of Screening Tools for the Early Detection of Peripheral Neuropathy in Adults with and without Type 2 Diabetes.Journal of diabetes research · 2017Article
- Nurses' Use of Race in Clinical Decision Making.Journal of nursing scholarship : an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing · 2016Article
- Contested Ownership of Disease and Ambulatory-Sensitive Emergency Department Visits for Type 2 Diabetes.The American journal of the medical sciences · 2016Article
- Gaps in preparedness of clergy and healthcare providers to address mental health needs of returning service members.Journal of religion and health · 2015Article
- Geographic clustering of diabetic lower-extremity amputations in low-income regions of California.Health affairs (Project Hope) · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
RATIONALE, AIMS AND
objectivesDecades of work on health disparities have culminated in identification of three contributors to variability in diagnosis and management of disease: (i) patient attributes; (ii) doctor's characteristics; and (iii) organizational factors. Understanding the relative influence of different contributors to variability in diagnosis and management of diabetes is important to improving quality and reducing disparities. This study was designed to examine the influence of patient, provider and organizational factors on the diagnosis and management of a major chronic disease - diabetes.
methodA factorial experiment using video vignettes was conducted among n = 192 primary care doctors. Doctors were interviewed after viewing vignettes of (1) a 'patient' with symptoms strongly suggestive of diabetes and (2) an already diagnosed diabetes 'patient' with emerging peripheral neuropathy.
resultsA total of 60.9% of doctors identified diabetes as the correct diagnosis, with significant variations depending on the patients' race/ethnicity. Many doctors offered competing diagnoses with high levels of certainty. For the 'patient' with emerging peripheral neuropathy, 42.2% of doctors would do all essential components of a foot examination, while 21.9% would do none.
conclusionsThat half of all diabetes in the United States remains undiagnosed is unsurprising given only 60.9% of doctors would diagnose it when the condition is strongly suggested, and nearly one-quarter suspecting diabetes would not order tests necessary to confirm it. The diagnosis of diabetes is significantly influenced by a patient's race/ethnicity, and clinical management (specifically for foot neuropathy) is influenced by patient socio-economic status (SES), doctor's gender and access to clinical guidelines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.