Cited by 42Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsDiversity and Career in MedicineSex and Gender in Healthcare

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

Open access
Lutfey, Karen E., Link, Carol L., Grant, Richard W., Marceau, Lisa D., McKinlay, John B.·2009·Health Policy

Abstract

Objectives To (1) examine the influence of patient and provider attributes on physicians' diagnostic certainty and (2) assess the effect of diagnostic certainty on clinical therapeutic actions. Methods Factorial experiment of 128 generalist physicians using identical clinically authentic videotaped vignettes depicting patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) or depression. Results For CHD, physicians were least certain for Black patients (p=.003) and for younger female patients (p=.013). For depression, average certainty was higher than for the CHD presentation (74.0 vs. 57.9 on of scale of 0-100, p<.001) and there were no main effects of patient or provider characteristics. Increasing diagnostic certainty was a significant predictor of subsequent clinical actions, and these varied according to physician and patient characteristics across both conditions. Conclusions Physicians were least certain of their CHD diagnoses for Black patients and for younger women, but patient characteristics alone did not affect physician certainty of depression diagnoses. Physicians responded differentially to diagnostic certainty in terms of their clinical therapeutic actions such as test ordering and writing prescriptions. Physician responses to certainty may be as important as their responses to patient characteristics for understanding variation in clinical decision-making.

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 · 10.1016/j.healthpol.2008.06.007

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • Eight articles appeared to refer to the same data collected in a single cross-country comparison study, and a further two articles analysed the same data.

    “eight articles appeared to refer to the same data collected in a single cross-country comparison study [27–32, 34, 35] and a further two articles analysed the same data [45, 47].”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. [3]Kannel WB Abbott RD Eaker ED Packard B Wenger NK Clarkson TB Tyroler HA Incidence and prognosis of myocardial infarction in women: the Framingham Study Coronary Heart Disease in Women Proceedings of an NIH Workshop New York Haymarket-Doyma 1987 208 14
  2. [21]Institute of Medicine Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Healthcare Washington, D.C The National Academies Press 2003 25032386
  3. [33]McKinlay J Link C Arber S Marceau L O’Donnell A Adams A How do Doctors in Different Countries Manage the Same Patient? Results of a Factorial Experiment Health Services Research 2006 41 6 2182 200 Erratum in 41(6):303 PMC1955316 17116115
  4. [47]Robra BP Kania H Kuss O Schonfisch K Swart E [Determinants of hospital admission--investigation by case vignettes] Gesundheitswesen 2006 Jan 68 1 32 40 16463243
  5. [54]Cochran WG Cox GM Experimental Designs New York John Wiley and Sons 1957

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lutfey, K. E., Link, C. L., Grant, R. W., Marceau, L. D., & McKinlay, J. B.
Affiliations
  • New England Research Institutes (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Lutfey, Karen E.
Venue
Health Policy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-03
Volume
89
Issue
3
Pages
279-287
ISSN
0168-8510 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2029990752
Cited by
42
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 4 · 2012: 6
FWCI
1.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Health Policy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute on Aging (R01 AG16747, R01AG016747)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Diversity and Career in Medicine
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Sex and Gender in Healthcare
Keywords
diagnostic certainty, racial disparities, gender disparities, coronary artery disease, depression, Black patients, young women, patient characteristics, provider characteristics, test ordering, drug prescribing, case vignettes
MeSH terms
Aged, Coronary Disease, Decision Making, Depression, Diagnosis, Differential, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Physicians, Sex Factors, Videotape Recording, Racial Groups, Health Status Disparities

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