Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 404

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 106 of the 106 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Discrimination and Medical Mistrust in a Racially and Ethnically Diverse Sample of California Adults

Open access
Bazargan, Mohsen, Cobb, Sharon, Assari, Shervin·2021·The Annals of Family Medicine

Abstract

PURPOSE Although we know that racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to have mistrust in the health care system, very limited knowledge exists on correlates of such medical mistrust among this population. In this study, we explored correlates of medical mistrust in a representative sample of adults. METHODS We analyzed cross-sectional study data from the Survey of California Adults on Serious Illness and End-of-Life 2019. We ascertained race/ethnicity, health status, perceived discrimination, demographics, socioeconomic factors, and medical mistrust. For data analysis, we used multinomial logistic regression models. RESULTS Analyses were based on 704 non-Hispanic Black adults, 711 Hispanic adults, and 913 non-Hispanic White adults. Racial/ethnic background was significantly associated with the level of medical mistrust. Adjusting for all covariates, odds of reporting medical mistrust were 73% higher (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.73; 95% CI, 1.15-2.61, P <.01) and 49% higher (aOR = 1.49; 95% CI, 1.02-2.17, P <.05) for non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic adults when compared with non-Hispanic White adults, respectively. Perceived discrimination was also associated with higher odds of medical mistrust. Indicating perceived discrimination due to income and insurance was associated with 98% higher odds of medical mistrust (aOR = 1.98; 95% CI, 1.71-2.29, P <.001). Similarly, the experience of discrimination due to racial/ethnic background and language was associated with a 25% increase in the odds of medical mistrust (aOR = 1.25; 95% CI, 1.10-1.43; P <.001). CONCLUSIONS Perceived discrimination is correlated with medical mistrust. If this association is causal, that is, if perceived discrimination causes medical mistrust, then decreasing such discrimination may improve trust in medical clinicians and reduce disparities in health outcomes. Addressing discrimination in health care settings is appropriate for many reasons related to social justice. More longitudinal research is needed to understand how complex societal, economic, psychological, and historical factors contribute to medical mistrust. This type of research may in turn inform the design of multilevel community- and theory-based training models to increase the structural competency of health care clinicians so as to reduce medical mistrust.

Overview

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 · 10.1370/afm.2632

Cites

106 of 106 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 106 references

Cited by

See all 404

Metadata

Authors
Bazargan, M., Cobb, S., & Assari, S.
Venue
The Annals of Family Medicine
Published
2021-01
Volume
19
Issue
1
Pages
4-15
ISSN
  • 1544-1709 (ISSN-L)
  • 1544-1717
OpenAlex
W3120049179
Cited by
404
References
106
FWCI
69.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
diamond

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Discrimination and Medical Mistrust in a Racially and Ethnically Diverse Sample of California Adults. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1370/afm.2632
The paper
Bazargan, M., Cobb, S., & Assari, S. (2021). Discrimination and Medical Mistrust in a Racially and Ethnically Diverse Sample of California Adults. The Annals of Family Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2632

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.