Cited by 18Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsPrimary Care and Health OutcomesPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare

An additional cause of health care disparities: the variable clinical decisions of primary care doctors

Open access
McKinlay, John, Piccolo, Rebecca, Marceau, Lisa·2013·Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice

Abstract

Rationaleaims and objectives: Decades of work on health disparities have culminated in identification of three contributors to variability in diagnosis and management of disease: (i) patient attributes; (ii) doctor's characteristics; and (iii) organizational factors. Understanding the relative influence of different contributors to variability in diagnosis and management of diabetes is important to improving quality and reducing disparities. This study was designed to examine the influence of patient, provider and organizational factors on the diagnosis and management of a major chronic disease – diabetes. Method: A factorial experiment using video vignettes was conducted among n = 192 primary care doctors. Doctors were interviewed after viewing vignettes of (1) a ‘patient’ with symptoms strongly suggestive of diabetes and (2) an already diagnosed diabetes ‘patient’ with emerging peripheral neuropathy. Results: A total of 60.9% of doctors identified diabetes as the correct diagnosis, with significant variations depending on the patients’ race/ethnicity. Many doctors offered competing diagnoses with high levels of certainty. For the ‘patient’ with emerging peripheral neuropathy, 42.2% of doctors would do all essential components of a foot examination, while 21.9% would do none. Conclusions: That half of all diabetes in the U nited S tates remains undiagnosed is unsurprising given only 60.9% of doctors would diagnose it when the condition is strongly suggested, and nearly one‐quarter suspecting diabetes would not order tests necessary to confirm it. The diagnosis of diabetes is significantly influenced by a patient's race/ethnicity, and clinical management (specifically for foot neuropathy) is influenced by patient socio‐economic status (SES), doctor's gender and access to clinical guidelines.

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 · 10.1111/jep.12015

Cites

3 of 3 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?

  • SES-related stereotypes seem to be a contributing factor that maintains health inequalities, given that HP decision-making appears to lead to unwarranted variations in care and treatment.

    “Consequently, SES-related stereotypes seem to be a contributing factor that maintains health inequalities, given that HP decision-making appears to lead to unwarranted variations in care and treatment.64”

    From Health professionals implicit bias of patients with low socioeconomic status (SES) and its effects on clinical decision-making: a scoping review (2024) · cites this paper as [64]

    The Results section on diagnosed diabetes with emerging foot neuropathy reports that lower-SES patients with identical symptoms were less likely to receive several recommended examinations and might be diagnosed later. The Discussion links variable physician decisions to health care disparities. The paper does not establish that SES-related stereotypes caused those decisions. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • HP decision-making is also subject to non-medical factors, as assumptions are often made about the care of people of low SES based on bias and stereotyping, which causes or exacerbates health inequalities that can adversely affect patient's clinical outcomes.

    “HP decision-making is also subject to non-medical factors, as assumptions are often made about the care of people of low SES based on bias and stereotyping, which causes or exacerbates health inequalities that can adversely affect patient’s clinical outcomes.64”

    From Health professionals implicit bias of patients with low socioeconomic status (SES) and its effects on clinical decision-making: a scoping review (2024) · cites this paper as [64]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • HPs make different judgements or decisions about assessment, treatment and care based on who the patient is, as opposed to what they present with.

    “HPs make different judgements or decisions about assessment, treatment and care based on who the patient is, as opposed to what they present with.64”

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: 30

  1. [2]King H Aubert RE Herman WH Global burden of diabetes, 1995-2025: prevalence, numerical estimates, and projections Diabetes Care 1998 21 9 1414 31 9727886
  2. [4]Flegal KM Carroll MD Ogden CL Johnson CL Prevalence and trends in obesity among US adults, 1999-2000 Journal of the American Medical Association 2002 288 14 1723 7 12365955
  3. [5]Steinbrook R Facing the diabetes epidemic--mandatory reporting of glycosylated hemoglobin values in New York City New England Journal of Medicine 2006 354 6 545 8 16467539
  4. [9]Fradkin JE Confronting the urgent challenge of diabetes: an overview Health Affairs (Millwood) 2012 31 1 12 9 22232089
  5. [10]Dunstan DW Zimmet PZ Welborn TA The rising prevalence of diabetes and impaired glucose tolerance: the Australian Diabetes, Obesity and Lifestyle Study Diabetes Care 2002 25 5 829 34 11978676
  6. [11]McKinlay J Marceau L US public health and the 21st century: diabetes mellitus The Lancet 2000 356 9231 757 61 11085708
  7. [13]Harris MI Flegal KM Cowie CC Eberhardt MS Goldstein DE Little RR Wiedmeyer HM Byrd-Holt DD Prevalence of diabetes, impaired fasting glucose, and impaired glucose tolerance in U.S. adults. The Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988-1994 Diabetes Care 1998 21 4 518 24 9571335
  8. [14]Chiasson JL Josse RG Gomis R Hanefeld M Karasik A Laakso M Acarbose for prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus: the STOP-NIDDM randomised trial The Lancet 2002 359 9323 2072 7 12086760
  9. [17]Harris MI National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey Frequency of blood glucose monitoring in relation to glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes Diabetes Care 2001 24 6 979 82 11375356
  10. [18]UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group Effect of intensive blood-glucose control with metformin on complications in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 34). UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group The Lancet 1998 352 9131 854 65 9742977
  11. [19]UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group The Lancet 1998 352 9131 837 53 9742976
  12. [20]Eisenberg JM Physician utilization: the state of research about physicians’ practice patterns Medical Care 2002 40 11 1016 35 12409848
  13. [22]Peek ME Cargill A Huang ES Diabetes health disparities: a systematic review of health care interventions Medical Care Research and Review 2007 64 Suppl 5 101S 56S 17881626 PMC2367214
  14. [23]Saaddine JB Engelgau MM Beckles GL Gregg EW Thompson TJ Narayan KM A diabetes report card for the United States: quality of care in the 1990s Annals of Internal Medicine 2002 136 8 565 74 11955024
  15. [24]Institute of Medicine (IOM) Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care 2003 The National Academies Press Washington, DC 25032386
  16. [25]Keating NL Landrum MB Landon BE Ayanian JZ Borbas C Wolf R Guadagnoli E The influence of physicians’ practice management strategies and financial arrangements on quality of care among patients with diabetes Medical Care 2004 42 9 829 39 15319608
  17. [26]Marceau L McKinlay J Shackelton R Link C The relative contribution of patient, provider and organizational influences to the appropriate diagnosis and management of diabetes mellitus Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 2011 17 1122 8 20630007 PMC2990814
  18. [27]Williams RA Eliminating Healthcare Disparities in America: Beyond the IOM Report 2007 Humana Press Totowa, NJ
  19. [28]Arday DR Fleming BB Keller DK Pendergrass PW Vaughn RJ Turpin JM Nicewander DA Variation in diabetes care among states: do patient characteristics matter? Diabetes Care 2002 25 12 2230 7 12453966
  20. [29]American Diabetes Association Diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus Diabetes Care 2008 31 Suppl 1 S55 60 18165338
  21. [30]American Diabetes Association Standards of medical care in diabetes--2008 Diabetes Care 2008 31 Suppl 1 S12 54 18165335
  22. [32]Ryden L Standl E Bartnik M Guidelines on diabetes, pre-diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases: executive summary. The Task Force on Diabetes and Cardiovascular Diseases of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) European Heart Journal 2007 28 1 88 136 17220161
  23. [33]Cochran WG Cox GM Experimental Designs 1992 Wiley New York
  24. [34]Montgomery DC Design and Analysis of Experiments 2001 Wiley New York
  25. [36]Konrad TR Link CL Shackelton RJ Marceau LD von dem Knesebeck O Siegrist J Arber S Adams A McKinlay JB It’s about time: physicians’ perceptions of time constraints in primary care medical practice in three national healthcare systems Medical Care 2010 48 2 95 100 20057331 PMC3621071
  26. [37]Shackelton RJ Marceau LD Link CL McKinlay JB The intended and unintended consequences of clinical guidelines Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 2009 15 6 1035 42 20367703 PMC3645281
  27. [38]Lutfey K Link C Marceau L McKinlay JB Kattan MW Social Factors Encyclopedia of Medical Decision Making 2009 1046 54 Sage Publications Thousand Oaks, CA
  28. [39]McGuire TG Ayanian JZ Ford DE Henke RE Rost KM Zaslavsky AM Testing for statistical discrimination by race/ethnicity in panel data for depression treatment in primary care Health Services Research 2008 43 2 531 51 18370966 PMC2442383
  29. [40]McKinlay JB Marceau LD Piccolo RJ Do doctors contribute to the social patterning of disease? The case of race/ethnic disparities in diabetes mellitus Medical Care Research and Review 2012 69 2 176 93 22156837 PMC3706097
  30. [41]Maserejian NN Lutfey KE McKinlay JB Do Physicians Attend to Base Rates? Prevalence Data and Statistical Discrimination in the Diagnosis of Coronary Heart Disease Health Services Research 2009 44 6 1933 49 19780850 PMC2796307

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McKinlay, J., Piccolo, R., & Marceau, L.
Affiliations
  • New England Research Institutes (US)
  • Health Services and Disparities Research
Corresponding author
McKinlay, John
Venue
Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-12-06
Volume
19
Issue
4
Pages
664-673
ISSN
  • 1356-1294 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2753
OpenAlex
W2165416346
Cited by
18
References
3
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2014: 2
FWCI
0.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R01DK066425)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Keywords
health care disparities, diabetes diagnosis, diabetes management, primary care physicians, clinical decision-making, racial and ethnic disparities, socioeconomic status, peripheral neuropathy, foot examination, clinical guidelines, video vignettes, physician gender
MeSH terms
Age Factors, Decision Making, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Diabetic Neuropathies, Humans, Hyperglycemia, Income, Random Allocation, Sex Factors, United States, Patient Simulation, Racial Groups, Healthcare Disparities, Physicians, Primary Care

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