Cited by 33Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentHealth disparities and outcomesGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening

The Influence of Patient Race and Social Vulnerability on Urologist Treatment Recommendations in Localized Prostate Carcinoma

Denberg, Thomas D., Kim, Fernando J., Flanigan, Robert C., Fairclough, Diane, Beaty, Brenda L., Steiner, John F., Hoffman, Richard M.·2006·Medical Care

Abstract

Background In localized prostate carcinoma (PCa), many studies have found that black subjects receive radical prostatectomy (RP) less often than white subjects. Such disparities involve barriers to health care, comorbid illnesses, tumor characteristics, and patient preferences. It is unclear whether differences in urologist treatment recommendations also might play a role. Methods Using a randomized, 2 x 2 factorial design, we presented 2000 urologists with a clinical vignette and asked them to recommend treatment of a healthy 70-year-old patient with low-risk, clinically localized PCa. Options included either RP, external beam radiotherapy, brachytherapy, cryotherapy, observation, or hormonal therapy. There were 2 variables within 4 otherwise-identical versions of the vignette: 1) patient race (black vs. white) and 2) social vulnerability (middle-income and married vs. low-income and widowed). We used multivariable logistic regression to model the effects of patient race, social vulnerability, and their interaction on recommendations for RP versus radiotherapy. Results The response rate was 66.1% (n = 1313). Race and social vulnerability interacted (P = 0.05) such that the highly vulnerable black patient received an RP recommendation 14.4% less often than his less vulnerable counterpart; the difference between the 2 white patients was 4.2%. Discussion Race interacts with social vulnerability to influence urologist recommendations for RP. Because PCa tends to be more lethal i…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/01.mlr.0000233684.27657.36

Cites

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?

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 33 · Cited by 33

Authors
Denberg, T. D., Kim, F. J., Flanigan, R. C., Fairclough, D., Beaty, B. L., Steiner, J. F., & Hoffman, R. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Colorado Health (US)
  • Denver Health Medical Center (US)
  • Loyola University Chicago (US)
  • University of New Mexico (US)
Corresponding author
  • Denberg, Thomas D.
  • Steiner, John F.
Venue
Medical Care
Published
2006-12
Volume
44
Issue
12
Pages
1137-1141
ISSN
0025-7079 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2018672277
Cited by
33
References
33
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
FWCI
2.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Medical Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
Keywords
localized prostate cancer, racial disparities, social vulnerability, radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy, brachytherapy, cryotherapy, hormone therapy, clinical vignettes, black-white disparities, low-income patients, health care disparities
MeSH terms
Aged, Black or African American, Health Services Research, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Prostatic Neoplasms, Regression Analysis, Multivariate Analysis, Vulnerable Populations, White People

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