ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2016
A Comparative Study of Liver Disease Care in the USA and Urban and Rural China.
Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Gray Areas in Language-Concordant Healthcare: a Graduating Medical Student's Reflection on the Experience and Research on Language and Cultural Competence.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundChronic liver disease is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the USA and China, but the etiology of liver disease, medical practice, and patient expectations in these two countries are different.
aimsTo compare patient knowledge about their liver disease, patient satisfaction with liver disease care, and patient medical decision-making preference in the USA and China.
methodsThree cohorts of established adult patients with liver disease seen in liver clinics in Ann Arbor, USA, and Beijing (urban) and Hebei (rural), China, completed a survey between May and September 2014.
resultsA total of 990 patients (395 USA, 398 Beijing, and 197 Hebei) were analyzed. Mean liver disease knowledge score (maximum 5) in the USA, Beijing, and Hebei patients was 4.1, 3.6, and 3.0, respectively (p < 0.001). US patients had a greater preference for collaborative decision-making: 71.8 % preferred to make treatment decisions together with the doctor, while most Chinese patients (74.6 % Beijing and 84.8 % Hebei) preferred passive decision-making. Mean satisfaction score (maximum 85) in the USA was higher than in Beijing, which in turn was higher than in Hebei (78.2 vs. 66.5 vs. 60.3, p < 0.001). There was a positive correlation between liver disease knowledge score and satisfaction score (r = 0.27, p < 0.001) and with collaborative medical decision-making (r = 0.22, p < 0.001) when responses from all sites were combined.
conclusionsLiver disease knowledge and patient satisfaction were greatest in the USA, followed by Beijing and then Hebei patients. Understanding these differences and associated factors may help to improve patient outcomes.
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.