Trial reportJournal of general internal medicine2025
Patient Perceptions of Provider Race Concordance and Quality of Chronic Illness Care.
Trial report in Journal of general internal medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Factors influencing trustworthiness and perceived biases of medical information and genetic testing for Black and White Americans.PLoS genetics · 2025Article
- Enhancing equity within the promotions dossier evaluation-Strategies to mitigate biases.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Healthcare Professionals' Attitudes and Perspectives on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion in an Academic Culture: A Freelisting Study.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBlack people are more likely to have hypertension and report lower quality of care than White people. Patient-provider race concordance could improve perceived quality of care, potentially lessening disparities.
objectiveInvestigate the association between patient-provider race concordance and patient-perceived quality of chronic disease care, as measured by the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) scale.
designCross-sectional analysis of baseline data from a randomized trial with Black patients with persistently uncontrolled hypertension.
settingParticipants received care at one of 69 rural primary care practices in Alabama and North Carolina.
participantsThree hundred and ninety-one Black patients with persistently uncontrolled hypertension enrolled in the Southeastern Collaboration to Improve Blood Pressure Control (SEC) trial. MAIN MEASURE: PACIC overall scores and subscale scores (patient activation, delivery system, goal setting, problem solving, follow-up).
resultsOf 1592 patients enrolled in the SEC trial, 391 participants self-reported race concordance data and completed the PACIC. Most participants were age < 60 (52.4%), 65.2% identified as women, and 50.1% were beneficiaries of either Medicare or Medicaid. Those with patient-provider race concordance reported higher overall PACIC scores (58.8% vs 46.1%, p < 0.05), with higher sub-scores of goal setting (60.9% vs 46.8%, p < 0.05) and problem-solving (62.7% vs 48.0%, p < 0.05) compared to those without race concordance. Poisson regression models of participants age ≥ 60 years demonstrated that those with race concordance were more likely to have higher overall PACIC scores (RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.17-2.0, p = 0.002), goal-setting subscale scores (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.24-2.15, p = 0.0005), and problem-solving subscale scores (RR 1.66, 95% CI 1.29-2.14, p < 0.0001). Those < 60 years of age had no significant findings comparing those with and without race concordance.
conclusionsOlder Black patients perceived greater quality of care if their providers were also Black.
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.