ArticleHealth services research2025
Disabled Patients' Experiences of Healthcare Services in a Nationally Representative Sample of U.S. Adults.
Article in Health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07609238 (A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Training Programs Designed to Improve Awareness, Attitudes, and Empathy Toward Individuals With Disabilities in Nursing Students), which is not on this 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.
A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Training Programs Designed to Improve Awareness, Attitudes, and Empathy Toward Individuals With Disabilities in Nursing Students
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Disability Bias in Patient Prioritization: How Patients' Mobility Impairments Influences Prioritization to Mechanical Ventilation.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
- Making patient experience actionable: applying importance-performance analysis to guide improvements in Swedish healthcare.Frontiers in health services · 2026Article
- Disabled Patients' Experiences of Healthcare Services in a Nationally Representative Sample of U.S. Adults.Health services research · 2025Article
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
objectiveTo examine patient-reported experiences of healthcare services by disability status. STUDY SETTING AND
designWe conducted a cross-sectional analysis of Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) measures of overall healthcare satisfaction, timeliness of care, and patient-provider interactions to assess differences by disability status and, among those with a disability, between those with sensory, physical, cognitive, or multiple disabilities. DATA SOURCES AND ANALYTIC SAMPLE: CAHPS measures included in the 2021 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey for U.S. adults. PRINCIPAL
findingsPeople with disabilities reported significantly lower ratings of healthcare services compared to the general population (7.98, 95% CI: 7.89-8.08 vs. 8.38, 95% CI: 8.34-8.43 on a scale of 0 [worst] to 10 [best]), with the lowest satisfaction among people with multiple disabilities (7.87, 95% CI: 7.72-8.02). Disabled people reported worse experiences on all measures compared to people without disabilities. People with physical, cognitive, and multiple disabilities reported significantly worse experiences of healthcare services than those with sensory disabilities.
conclusionsIn a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults, disabled people reported lower satisfaction with healthcare services, less timely care, and worse provider interactions than people without disabilities. Changes to policy and practice are needed to improve healthcare experiences for disabled people.
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.