Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 356

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Racial differences in doctors' information‐giving and patients' participation

Open access
Gordon, Howard S., Street, Richard L., Sharf, Barbara F., Souchek, Julianne·2006·Cancer

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Whether doctor‐patient communication differs by race was investigated in patients with pulmonary nodules or lung cancer. METHODS: Eligible patients (n = 137) had pulmonary nodules or lung cancer and were seen in thoracic surgery or oncology clinics for initial treatment recommendations at a large southern Veterans Affairs Medical Center from 2001–2004. Doctor‐patient consultations were audiotaped. Audiotapes were transcribed, unitized into utterances, and utterances were coded as doctors' information‐giving or patients' and companions' active participation (asking questions, expressing concerns, and making assertions). Data were compared by patient race and doctor‐patient racial concordance using t‐tests or chi‐square tests as appropriate. Mixed linear regression was used to determine the independent predictors of doctor's information‐giving after controlling for clustering of patients by doctor. RESULTS: Patient age, gender, marital status, clinical site, and health status were similar by race (P > .20), but black patients were somewhat less likely to have education beyond high school and to bring a companion to the visit (P = .06) than white patients. Black patients and their companions received significantly less information from doctors (49.3 vs. 87.3 mean utterances; P < .001) and produced significantly fewer active participation utterances (21.4 vs. 37.2; P < .001) than white patients. In mixed regression analyses, after adjusting for patients' and companions' participation, clustering by doctor, and other factors, race no longer predicted information‐giving (P = .54). Patients in racially discordant interactions received significantly less information and were significantly less active participants (P < .001) when compared with patients in racially concordant interactions, and after controlling for patients' participation and other factors using mixed regression, racial discordance did not predict information‐giving. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate a pattern of communication that may perpetuate patient passivity and limited information exchange where black patients and patients in discordant interactions do less to prompt doctors for information and doctors in turn provide less information to these patients. Cancer 2006. © 2006 American Cancer Society.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/cncr.22122

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 10 references

Cited by

See all 356

Metadata

Authors
Gordon, H. S., Street, R. L., Sharf, B. F., & Souchek, J.
Venue
Cancer
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-09
Volume
107
Issue
6
Pages
1313-1320
ISSN
  • 0008-543X (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0142
OpenAlex
W2003260377
Cited by
356
References
10
FWCI
25.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Racial differences in doctors' information‐giving and patients' participation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/cncr.22122
The paper
Gordon, H. S., Street, R. L., Sharf, B. F., & Souchek, J. (2006). Racial differences in doctors' information‐giving and patients' participation. Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.22122

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.