ArticleCureus2024
Physicians' Perspectives on the Impact of Insurance Status on Clinical Decision-Making in Saudi Arabia.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background The decision-making process in clinical practice depends heavily on collaboration and information sharing. Physicians' decision-making processes are profoundly influenced by the patient's insurance status, which warrants focused investigation. Hence, this study aimed to investigate how physicians perceive the influence of insurance status on treatment options and medical interventions and to explore the extent to which physicians discuss insurance-related considerations with patients during the shared decision-making process. Methodology This was a cross-sectional exploratory study conducted in various healthcare facilities all over Saudi Arabia. The electronic questionnaire was the primary tool for data collection. Data were then coded, entered, and analyzed using both descriptive and inferential statistical methods. Results The study involved 430 physicians, primarily male (
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.