Literature DB >> 16924161

The effect of race/ethnicity, sex, and social circumstances on coronary revascularization preferences: a vignette comparison.

Janice M Barnhart1, Sylvia Wassertheil-Smoller.   

Abstract

Disparities in cardiac care cannot be explained by clinical factors alone. We previously found that physicians' perceived nonclinical factors such as patient preferences influenced decisions for coronary revascularization. For this study, we mailed a questionnaire to a random sample of family medicine physicians, internists, cardiologists, and cardiothoracic surgeons to examine whether the patient's sex, race/ethnicity, and social circumstances impacted treatment preferences for different physician subgroups. All physicians were randomized to receive 1 of 4 questionnaires that contained a vignette describing certain hypothetical situations (desire for an active lifestyle, heavy career or family demands) for a 50-year patient who was a candidate for coronary revascularization who was 1) female, 2) male, 3) black male, or 4) white male. The response rate was 70% (544 of 777). The patient's race/ethnicity and sex did not significantly affect the physicians' treatment preferences. However, significant differences were found according to the social circumstance. More male physicians (78%) than female physicians (66%) recommended revascularization for patients with heavy family demands (P < 0.05). In logistic regression analyses, if the patient desired an active lifestyle, black and Hispanic physicians and fee-for-service physicians preferred revascularization less often than white and salaried physicians, respectively (odds ratio [OR] = 0.45 [0.21-0.94] for black/Hispanic; OR = 0.40 [0.18-0.86] for fee-for-service). Based on these results, certain social circumstances might influence treatment preferences among physician subgroups more than sex- or race-based patient factors. Research examining for causes of disparities in cardiac care should consider the effects of sociocultural issues on management decisions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16924161     DOI: 10.1097/01.crd.0000214180.24372.d5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cardiol Rev        ISSN: 1061-5377            Impact factor:   2.644


  9 in total

Review 1.  A systematic review of the extent and measurement of healthcare provider racism.

Authors:  Yin Paradies; Mandy Truong; Naomi Priest
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2013-09-04       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  Physician clinical information technology and health care disparities.

Authors:  Jonathan D Ketcham; Karen E Lutfey; Eric Gerstenberger; Carol L Link; John B McKinlay
Journal:  Med Care Res Rev       Date:  2009-06-29       Impact factor: 3.929

Review 3.  Preventing and Experiencing Ischemic Heart Disease as a Woman: State of the Science: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Authors:  Jean C McSweeney; Anne G Rosenfeld; Willie M Abel; Lynne T Braun; Lora E Burke; Stacie L Daugherty; Gerald F Fletcher; Martha Gulati; Laxmi S Mehta; Christina Pettey; Jane F Reckelhoff
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2016-02-29       Impact factor: 29.690

4.  The influence of non-clinical patient factors on medical oncologists' decisions to recommend breast cancer adjuvant chemotherapy.

Authors:  T May Pini; Sarah T Hawley; Yun Li; Steven J Katz; Jennifer J Griggs
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2012-06-21       Impact factor: 4.872

5.  What happens along the diagnostic pathway to CHD treatment? Qualitative results concerning cognitive processes.

Authors:  Karen E Lutfey; John B McKinlay
Journal:  Sociol Health Illn       Date:  2009-07-09

6.  Is certainty more important than diagnosis for understanding race and gender disparities?: an experiment using coronary heart disease and depression case vignettes.

Authors:  Karen E Lutfey; Carol L Link; Richard W Grant; Lisa D Marceau; John B McKinlay
Journal:  Health Policy       Date:  2008-08-12       Impact factor: 2.980

7.  Are providers more likely to contribute to healthcare disparities under high levels of cognitive load? How features of the healthcare setting may lead to biases in medical decision making.

Authors:  Diana J Burgess
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2009-09-02       Impact factor: 2.583

Review 8.  Implicit bias in healthcare professionals: a systematic review.

Authors:  Chloë FitzGerald; Samia Hurst
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2017-03-01       Impact factor: 2.652

9.  How do clinicians rate patient's performance status using the ECOG performance scale? A mixed-methods exploration of variability in decision-making in oncology.

Authors:  Soumitra S Datta; Niladri Ghosal; Rhea Daruvala; Santam Chakraborty; Raj Kumar Shrimali; Chantalle van Zanten; Joe Parry; Sanjit Agrawal; Shrikant Atreya; Subir Sinha; Sanjoy Chatterjee; Simon Gollins
Journal:  Ecancermedicalscience       Date:  2019-03-28
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.