Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33866084›Full record

ArticleSocial science & medicine (1982)2021

Racial disparities in provider-patient communication of incidental medical findings.

Rebecca A Schut

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Social science & medicine (1982), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Rebecca A SchutPopulation Studies Center, University of Pennsylvania, 239 McNeil Building, 3718 Locust Walk, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA. Electronic address: schutr@upenn.edu.

Funding

GRADUATE TRAINING IN DEMOGRAPHYT32HD007242 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI MICHEL GUILLOT · 1985 to 2026
$6.6M
NICHD NIH HHS T32 HD007242
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Health disparities research often focuses on the social patterning of health outcomes. Increasingly, there has been an emphasis on understanding the mechanisms perpetuating disparities, even after issues of patient access to health services are addressed. The following study utilizes a novel dataset of electronic medical records (EMR), radiology records, and U.S. Census data to investigate the racial/ethnic patterning of provider-patient communication among patients diagnosed with incidental medical findings requiring follow-up. My results indicate that racial/ethnic disparities in follow-up adherence stem from initial disparities in provider-patient communication. These communication disparities persist even after accounting for multiple socioeconomic, health, and provider characteristics, indicating a bias in medicine, whereby providers are less likely to communicate information about incidental medical findings to patients of color relative to White patients. This paper has important clinical implications, as it sheds new light on why we might see low adherence to medical advice among patients of color. Findings also have social, political, and policy relevance, as they suggest an important mechanism through which health inequalities persist. To finally eliminate racial/ethnic health inequalities in the United States, racial bias and discrimination within medical and public health infrastructures must be eliminated.

Indexed as

Healthcare DisparitiesRacial GroupsCommunicationEthnicityHumansSocioeconomic FactorsUnited StatesWhite PeopleAdherenceEMRIncidental findingsProvider-patient communicationRacial/ethnic disparitiesRadiologyUnited States

Identifiers

PMID33866084
PMCPMC8171074

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.