ArticleBMJ open quality2025
Roads diverge: mapping the journey towards diagnostic health equity.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ten years on: how far have we come in patient engagement in diagnosis?Diagnosis (Berlin, Germany) · 2025Review
- Emerging phenotype: Maturity-onset diabetes of the young type 5 (MODY-5) - mechanisms, clinical spectrum, and unmet needs.Diabetology & metabolic syndrome · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDiagnostic disparities significantly impact health outcomes, with various factors influencing differential access and treatment across communities. This paper explores the complex landscape of diagnosis and of variable diagnostic journeys, focusing on the multifaceted nature of diagnostic inequities and proposing a socioecological model to understand and address these disparities.
methodsThe authors employed an interdisciplinary approach, synthesising insights from their respective knowledge domains. Through iterative discussions, visual diagramming and narrative development, a new framework was constructed to address the complexity of diagnostic inequities.
resultsThe 'diagnostic environment' model was developed, conceptualising diagnosis beyond the biomedical process to include three levels of influence: atmospheric (broad, pervasive societal factors), surface (direct healthcare interactions) and subterranean (underlying, often invisible societal norms and biases). This model integrates process, social phenomena and multilevel influences to more comprehensively address diagnostic disparities. Two additional frameworks: diagnostic journeys within this environment and issue constellations guiding navigation and intervention were developed.
conclusionsDiagnostic processes are influenced by a range of factors from individual to systemic levels, often leading to significant disparities in health outcomes. The proposed model offers a framework for understanding these disparities and suggests targeted interventions to address them. By integrating diverse perspectives and focusing on multilevel influences, the framework aims to improve diagnostic equity. IMPLICATIONS: This study highlights the need for a more holistic approach to diagnosis, acknowledging the complex interplay of factors that contribute to diagnostic disparities. The socioecological model provides a basis for future research and policy interventions aimed at reducing these disparities and improving overall diagnostic accuracy and equity.
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.