Patient–Physician Role Relationships and Patient Activation: The Moderating Effects of Race and Ethnicity
Abstract
The goals of this article were to empirically describe how racial and ethnic minorities compare with Whites in terms of their role relationships with physicians and examine how differences in those relationships are associated (positively or negatively) with patient activation for minority groups, relative to Whites. Based on analysis of survey data collected from a random sample of 8,140 individuals with chronic illness, we found that both Blacks and Hispanics generally perceive their role relationships with physicians to be less equitable than do Whites and that the benefits to minorities from more equitable role relationships with physicians are not uniform across dimensions of patient–physician relationships or racial and ethnic subgroups. Based on these findings, we submit that race and ethnicity should be considered in the development and assessment of tailored interventions to improve activation.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Previous studies on patient-clinician racial/ethnic or gender concordance have shown mixed or inconclusive results.
“Findings from these studies are varied: some suggest that patient-clinician racial/ethnic or gender concordance offers benefits [7-11], while others do not [12-14]. Moreover, a recent systematic review studying the association between racial, gender, and multifactorial concordance reported inconclusive results on patient outcomes, advocating for further research [15].”
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 82 · Cited by 24
- Authors
- Alexander, J., Hearld, L., & Mittler, J. N.
- Affiliations
- University of Michigan (US)
- University of Alabama at Birmingham (US)
- Pennsylvania State University (US)
- Venue
- Medical Care Research and Review
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2014-07-15
- Volume
- 71
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 472-495
- ISSN
- 1077-5587 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-6801
- OpenAlex
- W2149759184
- Cited by
- 24
- References
- 82
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2015: 2
- FWCI
- 2.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Medical Care Research and Review (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
- Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Cultural Competency in Health Care
- Keywords
- physician-patient relationship, patient activation, racial and ethnic minorities, health equity, chronic disease, Black patients, Hispanic patients, personalized interventions, racial disparities in health care
- MeSH terms
- Black or African American, Chronic Disease, Female, Hispanic or Latino, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Participation, Physician-Patient Relations, Physician's Role, Surveys and Questionnaires, Role, White People, Healthcare 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