Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40017549›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2025

Exploring sociodemographic disparities in diagnostic problems and mistakes in the quest for diagnostic equity: insights from a national survey of patient experiences.

Kathryn M McDonald, Kelly T Gleason, Rachel N Grob, Christina T Yuan, Isha Dhingra, Jane A Evered, Emily M Warne, Mark Schlesinger

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
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

8 authors.

Kathryn M McDonaldSchool of Nursing, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, United States.
Kelly T GleasonSchool of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, United States.
Rachel N GrobQualitative and Health Experiences Research Lab, Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.
Christina T YuanSchool of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, United States.
Isha DhingraSchool of Public Health, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States.
Jane A EveredQualitative and Health Experiences Research Lab, Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.
Emily M WarneQualitative and Health Experiences Research Lab, Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.
Mark SchlesingerSchool of Public Health, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States.

Funding

AHRQ HHS R01 HS029789AHRQ HHS R18 HS029350
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: As part of building a platform for epidemiological research on diagnostic errors and problems that centers on patients and equity, this paper summarizes the development and analysis of data collected from fielding a survey in a nationally representative U.S. population to explore the prevalence and harm consequences of diagnostic problems or mistakes (referred to here as "diagnostic P&Ms") by respondent-reported sociodemographic characteristics. Methods: We applied narrative elicitation methods to enhance the rigor of implementing a novel survey about diagnostic experiences. We conducted a U.S. population-based survey of a nationally representative sample in 2022-2023, drawn from the NORC AmeriSpeak® panel. We conducted multivariate regression analysis at the household level and in a patient subsample to explore sociodemographic predictors of diagnostic P&Ms and related outcomes in the aftermath. Results: The comparative analysis by sociodemographic characteristics estimates prevalence of diagnostic P&Ms, prevalence of persisting harms, rate of respondent-reported perceptions of personal attribute adversely affecting diagnosis, and concern about future diagnostic P&Ms. Outcome estimates ranged from about 4% (concern about future diagnostic P&M) to 38% (at least one P&M in households during the past 4 years). Several sociodemographic groups experienced statistically significant higher levels of risk for these outcomes, with some at greater than twice the odds compared to reference groups-transgender and gender independent individuals (e.g., 5 + -fold odds of expectation of future P&M compared to cis-males), cis-females (e.g., greater than 1.5 odds of persistent physical and emotional harms compared to cis-males), low household income (e.g., twice the likelihood of multiple P&Ms for incomes under $60 K compared to $100 K+ households), younger age (3-fold odds of at least one diagnostic P&M for those under 25 years old compared to those aged 45-54), multiracial individuals (about twice the odds of diagnostic P&Ms compared to non-Hispanic White), and disabled and unable to work full-time (more than twice the likelihood of perceiving that a personal attribute impaired diagnosis compared to those with other work status designations). Discussion: This new survey and accompanying data source facilitate an enriched exploration of the patterns of diagnostic disparities and points of leverage through which diagnostic experiences can be made more equitable.

Indexed as

Diagnostic ErrorsHealthcare DisparitiesAdolescentAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSociodemographic FactorsSocioeconomic FactorsSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited StatesYoung Adultdiagnostic equitydiagnostic errorshousehold survey methodologypatient experiencepatient safetypopulation-based surveysociodemographic risk factors

Identifiers

PMID40017549
PMCPMC11865055

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.