Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42518238›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2026

Everyday Discrimination and Health Care Utilization Among US Adults.

John C Lin, David T Zhu, Jaya Aysola

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

John C LinDepartment of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
David T ZhuMedical Scientist Training Program, School of Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.
Jaya AysolaDepartment of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Everyday discrimination, defined as repeated exposure to subtle slights and unfair treatment, has been reported to be associated with adverse health outcomes, but its association with health care use remains incompletely understood. Objective: To examine the association between everyday discrimination and health care use among US adults. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study included 27 384 National Health Interview Survey respondents 18 years and older who completed the Everyday Discrimination Scale (EDS) in 2023. Statistical analysis was performed from August to October 2025. Exposure: Everyday discrimination was measured using the validated 5-item EDS, with composite scores ranging from 0 to 20 (higher scores indicate greater discrimination). Main Outcomes and Measures: Four categories of binary, self-reported health care outcomes across multiple timeframes were examined: delayed or forgone care, health care visits, cancer screenings, and vaccinations and other preventive screenings. Adjusted odds ratios (AORs) and 95% CIs were estimated using survey-weighted logistic regression, adjusted for demographic, socioeconomic, geographic, and clinical covariates. Results: The sample included 27 384 adults (mean [SD] age, 48.1 [18.5] years; 51.2% female [weighted percentage]). The mean (SD) EDS score was 2.48 (3.34). Higher EDS scores were associated with increased odds of cost-related barriers to medical care (AOR per 1-point increase, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.11-1.15) and prescription medications (AOR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.12-1.16). Higher scores were also associated with greater use of emergency department visits (AOR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.04-1.06), urgent care (AOR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.04-1.06) but lower odds of physician visits (AOR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.96-0.99) and dental visits (AOR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.99). Everyday discrimination was associated with lower engagement in cholesterol testing (AOR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.95-0.97) and diabetes screening (AOR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.96-0.98). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of 27 384 US adults, higher everyday discrimination scores were associated with higher reliance on emergency services and lower engagement with preventive care. Interventions addressing interpersonal and structural forms of discrimination, including culturally responsive care, implicit bias training, patient navigation programs, and expanded primary care access, are essential to reduce discrimination's impact on health care use and outcomes.

Indexed as

Patient Acceptance of Health CareAdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedUnited States

Identifiers

PMID42518238
PMCPMC13416909

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.