BACKGROUND:Women with acute coronary syndromes have lower rates of cardiac catheterization (CC) than men. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether sex⁄gender, age, risk level and patient preference influence physician decision making to refer patients for CC. METHODS:Twelve clinical scenarios controlling for sex⁄gender, age (55 or 75 years of age), Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction risk score (low, moderate or high) and patient preference for CC (agreeable or refused⁄no preference expressed) were designed. Scenarios were administered to specialists across Canada using a web-based computerized survey instrument. Questions were standardized using a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (very unlikely to benefit from CC) to 5 (very likely to benefit from CC). Outcomes were assessed using a two-tailed mixed linear regression model. RESULTS: Of 237 scenarios, physicians rated men as more likely to benefit from CC than women (mean [± SE] 4.44±0.07 versus 4.25±0.07, P=0.03), adjusted for age, risk and patient preference. Low-risk men were perceived to benefit more than low-risk women (4.20±0.13 versus 3.54±0.14, P<0.01), and low-risk younger patients were perceived to benefit more than low-risk older patients (4.52±0.17 versus 3.22±0.16, P<0.01). Regardless of risk, patients who agreed to CC were perceived as more likely to benefit from CC than patients who were disagreeable or made no comment at all (5.0±0.23, 3.67±0.21, 2.95±0.14, respectively, P<0.01). CONCLUSION: Canadian specialists' decisions to refer patients for CC appear to be influenced by sex⁄gender, age and patient preference in clinical scenarios in which cardiac risk is held constant. Future investigation of possible age and sex⁄gender biases as proxies for risk is warranted.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Women with acute coronary syndromes have lower rates of cardiac catheterization (CC) than men. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether sex⁄gender, age, risk level and patient preference influence physician decision making to refer patients for CC. METHODS: Twelve clinical scenarios controlling for sex⁄gender, age (55 or 75 years of age), Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction risk score (low, moderate or high) and patient preference for CC (agreeable or refused⁄no preference expressed) were designed. Scenarios were administered to specialists across Canada using a web-based computerized survey instrument. Questions were standardized using a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (very unlikely to benefit from CC) to 5 (very likely to benefit from CC). Outcomes were assessed using a two-tailed mixed linear regression model. RESULTS: Of 237 scenarios, physicians rated men as more likely to benefit from CC than women (mean [± SE] 4.44±0.07 versus 4.25±0.07, P=0.03), adjusted for age, risk and patient preference. Low-risk men were perceived to benefit more than low-risk women (4.20±0.13 versus 3.54±0.14, P<0.01), and low-risk younger patients were perceived to benefit more than low-risk older patients (4.52±0.17 versus 3.22±0.16, P<0.01). Regardless of risk, patients who agreed to CC were perceived as more likely to benefit from CC than patients who were disagreeable or made no comment at all (5.0±0.23, 3.67±0.21, 2.95±0.14, respectively, P<0.01). CONCLUSION: Canadian specialists' decisions to refer patients for CC appear to be influenced by sex⁄gender, age and patient preference in clinical scenarios in which cardiac risk is held constant. Future investigation of possible age and sex⁄gender biases as proxies for risk is warranted.
Authors: S C Smith; S N Blair; R O Bonow; L M Brass; M D Cerqueira; K Dracup; V Fuster; A Gotto; S M Grundy; N H Miller; A Jacobs; D Jones; R M Krauss; L Mosca; I Ockene; R C Pasternak; T Pearson; M A Pfeffer; R D Starke; K A Taubert Journal: Circulation Date: 2001-09-25 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: J E Roeters van Lennep; A H Zwinderman; H W Roeters van Lennep; H E Westerveld; H W Plokker; A A Voors; A V Bruschke; E E van der Wall Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2000-06 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: V L Roger; M E Farkouh; S A Weston; G S Reeder; S J Jacobsen; A R Zinsmeister; B P Yawn; S L Kopecky; S E Gabriel Journal: JAMA Date: 2000-02-02 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Marianna Karounos; Anna Marie Chang; Jennifer L Robey; Keara L Sease; Frances S Shofer; Christopher Follansbee; Judd E Hollander Journal: Emerg Med J Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: Gabriel E Fabreau; Alexander A Leung; Danielle A Southern; Merrill L Knudtson; J Michael McWilliams; John Z Ayanian; William A Ghali Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2014-06-03
Authors: Seok Oh; Ju Han Kim; Kyung Hoon Cho; Min Chul Kim; Doo Sun Sim; Young Joon Hong; Youngkeun Ahn; Myung Ho Jeong Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2022-01-21 Impact factor: 1.889