ArticleEthnicity & disease2019
A Comparison of Physicians' and Nurse Practitioners' Use of Race in Clinical Decision-Making.
Article in Ethnicity & disease, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Physicians' Perceptions of Race and Engagement in Race-Based Clinical Practice: a Mixed-Methods Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis.Journal of general internal medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Educational considerations based on medical student use of polygenic risk information and apparent race in a simulated consultation.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2022Trial
- Development and Evaluation of a Culturally TargetedKidney medicine · 2025Article
- Race-Based Care and Beliefs Regarding the Etiology of Racial Differences in Health Outcomes.American journal of preventive medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: The debate over use of race as a proxy for genetic risk of disease continues, but little is known about how primary care providers (nurse practitioners and general internal medicine physicians) currently use race in their clinical practice. Our study investigates primary care providers' use of race in clinical practice. Methods: Survey data from three cross-sectional parent studies were used. A total of 178 nurse practitioners (NPs) and 759 general internal medicine physicians were included. The outcome of interest was the Racial Attributes in Clinical Evaluation (RACE) scale, which measures explicit use of race in clinical decision-making. Predictor variables included the Genetic Variation Knowledge Assessment Index (GKAI), which measures the providers' knowledge of human genetic variation. Results: In the final multivariable model, NPs had an average RACE score that was 1.60 points higher than the physicians' score (P=.03). The GKAI score was not significantly associated with the RACE outcome in the final model (P=.67). Conclusions: Physicians had more knowledge of genetic variation and used patients' race less in the clinical decision-making process than NPs. We speculate that these differences may be related to differences in discipline-specific clinical training and approaches to clinical care. Further exploration of these differences is needed, including examination of physicians' and NPs' beliefs about race, how they use race in disease screening and treatment, and if the use of race is contributing to health care disparities.
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.