ArticleBMC health services research2025
Ethnic disparities and (non)adherence in standardized treatment: implications through an equity lens.
Article in BMC health services research, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn order to achieve optimal outcomes for patients, standardized treatment has gained traction in recent years. By unifying care based on the best available evidence, standardized treatment has been described as a means to mitigate health disparities. Despite this aim, ethnic and racial disparities are well-described. Standardized treatment depends on adherence from patients. However, how staff position patients' health behavior and assess, adapt, and intervene to improve adherence is underexplored. In this article, we aim to investigate how ethnically minoritized patients' health behavior is positioned under a gaze of (non)adherence.
methodsThis is an ethnographic study based on nine months of fieldwork in two orthopedic departments in Denmark. The work of both departments is based on the standardized concept of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS). The participants include patients (n = 13), relatives (n = 6), and hospital staff (n = 79). The data were analyzed using abductive analysis.
resultsThe analysis shows that when ethnically minoritized patients were positioned as nonadherent, the staff drew on essentialist and stereotypical problematizations of ethnicity to accommodate perceived differences. In this manner, ethnicity was connected to ideas of cultural food habits, collectivist family structures and un-stoic and exaggerated pain behavior.
conclusionsThis paper advances knowledge on how inequitable care and treatment manifests in clinical practice, illustrating how dominant understandings and conceptualizations at the intersections of health, ethnicity, and (non)adherence produce marginalization in standardized pathways. Ultimately, perceived non-adherence has important consequences for minoritized patients, as we find that it causes potential inaccessibility to standardized pathways due to ideas of ineligibility, undertreatment of pain, as well as underrepresentation of minorities in patient seminars and even same-day surgeries.
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.