Khadijah E Abdallah1, Kathleen A Calzone2, Jean F Jenkins3, Melissa E Moss1,4, Sherrill L Sellers5, Vence L Bonham1. 1. Health Disparities Unit, Social and Behavioral Research Branch, Division of Intramural Research, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD. 2. Genetics Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD. 3. Office of the Director, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD (retired). 4. Department of Psychology, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR. 5. Department of Family Science and Social Work, Miami University, Oxford, OH.
Abstract
Objective: The debate over use of race as a proxy for genetic risk of disease continues, but little is known about how primary care providers (nurse practitioners and general internal medicine physicians) currently use race in their clinical practice. Our study investigates primary care providers' use of race in clinical practice. Methods: Survey data from three cross-sectional parent studies were used. A total of 178 nurse practitioners (NPs) and 759 general internal medicine physicians were included. The outcome of interest was the Racial Attributes in Clinical Evaluation (RACE) scale, which measures explicit use of race in clinical decision-making. Predictor variables included the Genetic Variation Knowledge Assessment Index (GKAI), which measures the providers' knowledge of human genetic variation. Results: In the final multivariable model, NPs had an average RACE score that was 1.60 points higher than the physicians' score (P=.03). The GKAI score was not significantly associated with the RACE outcome in the final model (P=.67). Conclusions: Physicians had more knowledge of genetic variation and used patients' race less in the clinical decision-making process than NPs. We speculate that these differences may be related to differences in discipline-specific clinical training and approaches to clinical care. Further exploration of these differences is needed, including examination of physicians' and NPs' beliefs about race, how they use race in disease screening and treatment, and if the use of race is contributing to health care disparities.
Objective: The debate over use of race as a proxy for genetic risk of disease continues, but little is known about how primary care providers (nurse practitioners and general internal medicine physicians) currently use race in their clinical practice. Our study investigates primary care providers' use of race in clinical practice. Methods: Survey data from three cross-sectional parent studies were used. A total of 178 nurse practitioners (NPs) and 759 general internal medicine physicians were included. The outcome of interest was the Racial Attributes in Clinical Evaluation (RACE) scale, which measures explicit use of race in clinical decision-making. Predictor variables included the Genetic Variation Knowledge Assessment Index (GKAI), which measures the providers' knowledge of human genetic variation. Results: In the final multivariable model, NPs had an average RACE score that was 1.60 points higher than the physicians' score (P=.03). The GKAI score was not significantly associated with the RACE outcome in the final model (P=.67). Conclusions: Physicians had more knowledge of genetic variation and used patients' race less in the clinical decision-making process than NPs. We speculate that these differences may be related to differences in discipline-specific clinical training and approaches to clinical care. Further exploration of these differences is needed, including examination of physicians' and NPs' beliefs about race, how they use race in disease screening and treatment, and if the use of race is contributing to health care disparities.
Entities:
Keywords:
Clinical Decision-making; GKAI scale; Genomics; Health Care Disparities; Nurse Practitioners; Physicians; RACE scale; Race
Authors: Mary Catherine Beach; Eboni G Price; Tiffany L Gary; Karen A Robinson; Aysegul Gozu; Ana Palacio; Carole Smarth; Mollie W Jenckes; Carolyn Feuerstein; Eric B Bass; Neil R Powe; Lisa A Cooper Journal: Med Care Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Joel S Weissman; Joseph Betancourt; Eric G Campbell; Elyse R Park; Minah Kim; Brian Clarridge; David Blumenthal; Karen C Lee; Angela W Maina Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-09-07 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Shedra Amy Snipes; Sherrill L Sellers; Adebola Odunlami Tafawa; Lisa A Cooper; Julie C Fields; Vence L Bonham Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2011-08-05 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Lundy Braun; Anne Fausto-Sterling; Duana Fullwiley; Evelynn M Hammonds; Alondra Nelson; William Quivers; Susan M Reverby; Alexandra E Shields Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 11.069