Cited by 16Coronary Interventions and DiagnosticsDiversity and Career in MedicineSex and Gender in Healthcare

The Effect of Race/Ethnicity, Sex, and Social Circumstances on Coronary Revascularization Preferences: A Vignette Comparison

Barnhart, Janice M., Wassertheil-Smoller, Sylvia·2006·Cardiology in Review

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.…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/01.crd.0000214180.24372.d5

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Barnhart 2006 found significant differences according to social circumstance.

    “However, significant differences were found according to social circumstance.”
  • Barnhart 2006 found the patient's race and gender did not significantly affect the physicians' treatment preferences.

    “The patient’s race and gender did not significantly affect the physicians’ treatment preferences.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Barnhart, J. M., & Wassertheil-Smoller, S.
Affiliations
American Heart Association (US)
Corresponding author
Barnhart, Janice M.
Venue
Cardiology in Review
Published
2006-09
Volume
14
Issue
5
Pages
215-222
ISSN
1061-5377 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2074128611
Cited by
16
References
4
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
2.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Cardiology in Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Coronary Interventions and Diagnostics
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Diversity and Career in Medicine
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Sex and Gender in Healthcare
Keywords
coronary revascularization, racial and ethnic disparities, sex differences, social conditions, physician sex, physician race, salaried physicians, patient preferences, sociocultural factors
MeSH terms
Adult, Decision Making, Ethnicity, Female, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Life Style, Male, Middle Aged, Myocardial Revascularization, Patient Care Management, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Surveys and Questionnaires, Sex Factors, Socioeconomic Factors, Patient Satisfaction, Health Care Surveys, Racial Groups

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