ArticleDermatologic surgery : official publication for American Society for Dermatologic Surgery [et al.]2026
Patient Understanding of Health Care Practitioner Titles-A California Survey.
Article in Dermatologic surgery : official publication for American Society for Dermatologic Surgery [et al.], 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPhysicians are concerned that patients are confused by the professional titles used by nonphysician practitioners.
objectiveTo assess how commonly used medical titles and specialty descriptors are understood by adult Californians in relation to the practitioner's actual training and qualifications.
methodsA 60-question multiple choice online survey was conducted on California adults aged 18 to 99 years. The survey was designed to yield a 3.0% margin of error. Given the demographic diversity of California, participants were sourced from multiple opt-in survey panels and balanced for age, income, gender/race/ethnic diversity, education, community type, geography, and political ideology.
resultsA total of 1,033 subjects (24.6% response rate; 4,206 potential participants) met the inclusion criteria for the survey. Participants demonstrated significant confusion by the medical and specialty titles used by nonphysicians in California. Only 9% ( N = 91) of participants correctly matched a practitioner's level of training and qualifications with the medical or specialty titles provided in the survey. The understanding of medical titles also varied between age groups and across geographic locations in the state. Of the participants, 88% supported legislation to restrict the use "doctor" and "-ologist" terms to physicians only.
conclusionThe results underscore the need for California to provide additional regulation and legislation regarding title transparency.
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.