Denne side blev automatisk oversat, og nøjagtigheden af ​​oversættelsen er ikke garanteret. Der henvises til engelsk version for en kildetekst.

Effect of Physician Race and Gender on Simulated Patients' Ratings

18. juli 2020 opdateret af: Yale University

Effect of Physician Race and Gender on Simulated Patients' Ratings and Confidence in Their Physicians: A Randomized Trial

The purpose of the study was to determine whether the race and gender of a simulated doctor affected analog patients' reported confidence and satisfaction in the simulated doctor's diagnosis and treatment plan. The study used two randomized patient analog experiments.

This study is complete and pre-analysis plans (PAPs) for each experiment were published prior to data collection. The PAPs are available at: http://aspredicted.org/blind.php?x=43xj25 (Study 1) and https://aspredicted.org/blind.php?x=369st7 (Study 2).

Studieoversigt

Detaljeret beskrivelse

Prior literature is unclear on whether patients display bias in their evaluations of physicians based on their race or gender. The investigators estimated the effects of physician race and gender using an online clinical vignette. Participants played the role of analog patients reporting to the Emergency Department (ED) with symptoms consistent with gastroenteritis. Participants were provided with a diagnosis of gastroenteritis by a simulated ED physician. The race (black or white) and gender (male or female) of the simulated physician was randomly assigned in a 2x2 factorial experiment. Simulated physicians provided a diagnosis of gastroenteritis and contradicted by an Online Symptom Checker. Following the physician's diagnosis and contradiction by the Online Symptom Checker, participants rated the simulated physician on survey measures of satisfaction and confidence in both the treatment plan and diagnosis. The main (null) hypothesis tested was that there were no differences across the four treatment arms (Black Female, Black Male, White Female, White Male). Participants for the first experiment (Study 1) were recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) and participants for the second experiment (Study 2) were recruited from Lucid.

Primary Aim: To determine whether the race and gender of a simulated physician had a causal effect on participants' confidence and satisfaction in the physician's diagnosis and treatment plan in an ED setting.

Exploratory Aims: To determine whether the race and gender of a simulated physician had a casual effect on participants' perceptions of the warmth and competence of the physician, their willingness to sue or complain about the physician for an incorrect diagnosis, and their perceived fairness of the charge for the visit.

Undersøgelsestype

Interventionel

Tilmelding (Faktiske)

3592

Fase

  • Ikke anvendelig

Kontakter og lokationer

Dette afsnit indeholder kontaktoplysninger for dem, der udfører undersøgelsen, og oplysninger om, hvor denne undersøgelse udføres.

Studiesteder

    • Connecticut
      • New Haven, Connecticut, Forenede Stater, 06520
        • Yale University

Deltagelseskriterier

Forskere leder efter personer, der passer til en bestemt beskrivelse, kaldet berettigelseskriterier. Nogle eksempler på disse kriterier er en persons generelle helbredstilstand eller tidligere behandlinger.

Berettigelseskriterier

Aldre berettiget til at studere

18 år og ældre (Voksen, Ældre voksen)

Tager imod sunde frivillige

Ja

Køn, der er berettiget til at studere

Alle

Beskrivelse

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Adults over 18 years old

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Participants who reported current pregnancy
  • Participants who reported a current or prior diagnosis of cancer
  • Participants who reported a history of abdominal surgery

Studieplan

Dette afsnit indeholder detaljer om studieplanen, herunder hvordan undersøgelsen er designet, og hvad undersøgelsen måler.

Hvordan er undersøgelsen tilrettelagt?

Design detaljer

  • Primært formål: Sundhedstjenesteforskning
  • Tildeling: Randomiseret
  • Interventionel model: Faktoriel opgave
  • Maskning: Ingen (Åben etiket)

Våben og indgreb

Deltagergruppe / Arm
Intervention / Behandling
Eksperimentel: Simulated Black Male Physician
Participants are randomized to view the clinical vignette with a simulated Black Male physician.
Participants in this arm of the experiment viewed one of 10 randomly selected possible images of a simulated Black Male physician. This image was paired with a written treatment and diagnosis of gastroenteritis alongside a contradictory diagnosis and treatment plan for appendicitis from an Online Symptom Checker.
Eksperimentel: Simulated Black Female Physician
Participants are randomized to view the clinical vignette with a simulated Black Female physician.
Participants in this arm of the experiment viewed one of 10 randomly selected possible images of a simulated Black Female physician. This image was paired with a written treatment and diagnosis of gastroenteritis alongside a contradictory diagnosis and treatment plan for appendicitis from an Online Symptom Checker.
Eksperimentel: Simulated White Male Physician
Participants are randomized to view the clinical vignette with a simulated White Male physician.
Participants in this arm of the experiment viewed one of 10 randomly selected possible images of a simulated White Male physician. This image was paired with a written treatment and diagnosis of gastroenteritis alongside a contradictory diagnosis and treatment plan for appendicitis from an Online Symptom Checker.
Eksperimentel: Simulated White Female Physician
Participants are randomized to view the clinical vignette with a simulated White Female physician.
Participants in this arm of the experiment viewed one of 10 randomly selected possible images of a simulated White Female physician. This image was paired with a written treatment and diagnosis of gastroenteritis alongside a contradictory diagnosis and treatment plan for appendicitis from an Online Symptom Checker.

Hvad måler undersøgelsen?

Primære resultatmål

Resultatmål
Foranstaltningsbeskrivelse
Tidsramme
Patient Confidence
Tidsramme: Approximately 10 minutes
  1. "How confident are you that this doctor made the correct diagnosis?" Study 1: [not at all confident (0) to completely confident (100)] Study 2: [not at all confident (1) to completely confident (5)]*
  2. "How confident are you that this doctor made the correct treatment plan?" Study 1: [not at all confident (0) to completely confident (100)] Study 2: [not at all confident (1) to completely confident (5)]*

    • The Patient Confidence outcome for each study participant was the unweighted average of their ratings on questions a and b. In Study 1, this item was measured using 0-100 point scales. In Study 2, this outcome was measured using 5 point scales. For all analyses, these Patient Confidence outcomes from a and b were rescaled to match the 1-5 point range from Study 2.
Approximately 10 minutes
Believed Symptom Checker over Doctor
Tidsramme: Approximately 10 minutes
"Which diagnosis do you think is more likely to be correct?" [the doctor's diagnosis (0); online symptom checker (1)]
Approximately 10 minutes
Likelihood of Requesting more Tests
Tidsramme: Approximately 10 minutes
"Would you ask the doctor to perform additional diagnostic tests? (Such as the CT scan recommended by the Symptom Checker)." [definitely not (1); probably not (2); might or might not (3); probably (4); definitely (5)]
Approximately 10 minutes
Patient Satisfaction: scale
Tidsramme: Approximately 10 minutes

"What number would you use to rate your care during this emergency room visit?" Study 1: [0 (worse possible care) to 100 (best possible care)] Study 2: [0 (worse possible care) to 10 (best possible care)]*

*In Study 1, the Patient Satisfaction was measured using a 0-100 point scale. In Study 2, this was measured using a 10 point scale. For all analyses, this Patient Satisfaction outcome from Study 1 was rescaled to match the 0-10 point range in Study 2.

Approximately 10 minutes
Likelihood to Recommend
Tidsramme: Approximately 10 minutes
"Would you recommend this doctor to your friends and family?" [definitely not (1); probably not (2); might or might not (3); probably (4); definitely (5)]
Approximately 10 minutes

Sekundære resultatmål

Resultatmål
Foranstaltningsbeskrivelse
Tidsramme
Warmth and Competence
Tidsramme: Approximately 10 minutes
  1. Study 1: "How do you imagine this doctor would be in a real interaction?". 7-item scale: Tolerant, Warm, Sincere, Good-natured, Intelligent, Competent, Confident.
  2. Study 2: "Based on the doctor's diagnosis, to what extent do you find [him/her]". 6-item scale: Kind, Qualified, Intelligent, Competent, Open-minded, Trustworthy.

    • Warmth and Competence were measured in Study 1 (7-item scale) and Study 2 (6-item scale).
Approximately 10 minutes
Willingness to sue or complain
Tidsramme: Approximately 10 minutes

"You take the doctor's advice and go home. Over the next few days, the pain in your abdomen got worse and you returned to the hospital where you were diagnosed with appendicitis. Your appendix had burst and you developed a serious infection. This required emergency surgery and an extended stay in the hospital's intensive Care Unit"*

  1. "Would you file a complaint against this doctor?" [5 = "Definitely"; 4 = "Probably"; 3 = "Might or might not"; 2 = "Probably not"; 1 = "Definitely not"]
  2. "Would you consider suing this doctors?" [5 = "Definitely"; 4 = "Probably"; 3 = "Might or might not"; 2 = "Probably not"; 1 = "Definitely not"]

    • Willingness to sue or complain was only measured in Study 2.
Approximately 10 minutes
Fairness of the cost
Tidsramme: Approximately 10 minutes

"You would be charged about $350 for this emergency department visit. How fair do you think this charge is?" [0 = "Completely unfair" to 100 = "Completely Fair"]*

*Fairness of the cost was only measured in Study 1.

Approximately 10 minutes

Samarbejdspartnere og efterforskere

Det er her, du vil finde personer og organisationer, der er involveret i denne undersøgelse.

Sponsor

Publikationer og nyttige links

Den person, der er ansvarlig for at indtaste oplysninger om undersøgelsen, leverer frivilligt disse publikationer. Disse kan handle om alt relateret til undersøgelsen.

Datoer for undersøgelser

Disse datoer sporer fremskridtene for indsendelser af undersøgelsesrekord og resumeresultater til ClinicalTrials.gov. Studieregistreringer og rapporterede resultater gennemgås af National Library of Medicine (NLM) for at sikre, at de opfylder specifikke kvalitetskontrolstandarder, før de offentliggøres på den offentlige hjemmeside.

Studer store datoer

Studiestart (Faktiske)

9. marts 2018

Primær færdiggørelse (Faktiske)

31. juli 2018

Studieafslutning (Faktiske)

31. juli 2018

Datoer for studieregistrering

Først indsendt

18. november 2019

Først indsendt, der opfyldte QC-kriterier

5. december 2019

Først opslået (Faktiske)

9. december 2019

Opdateringer af undersøgelsesjournaler

Sidste opdatering sendt (Faktiske)

21. juli 2020

Sidste opdatering indsendt, der opfyldte kvalitetskontrolkriterier

18. juli 2020

Sidst verificeret

1. juli 2020

Mere information

Begreber relateret til denne undersøgelse

Andre undersøgelses-id-numre

  • 2000022317
  • 12916 (AsPredicted.org)
  • 9068 (Anden identifikator: AsPredicted.org)

Plan for individuelle deltagerdata (IPD)

Planlægger du at dele individuelle deltagerdata (IPD)?

JA

IPD-planbeskrivelse

We will make the data available upon individual request.

IPD-delingstidsramme

All data and replication code will be posted on an open-source website after the manuscript is accepted.

IPD-delingsadgangskriterier

We have no restrictions on access. All data and replication code will be posted on an open-source website after the manuscript is accepted.

IPD-deling Understøttende informationstype

  • STUDY_PROTOCOL
  • SAP
  • ICF
  • ANALYTIC_CODE

Lægemiddel- og udstyrsoplysninger, undersøgelsesdokumenter

Studerer et amerikansk FDA-reguleret lægemiddelprodukt

Ingen

Studerer et amerikansk FDA-reguleret enhedsprodukt

Ingen

Disse oplysninger blev hentet direkte fra webstedet clinicaltrials.gov uden ændringer. Hvis du har nogen anmodninger om at ændre, fjerne eller opdatere dine undersøgelsesoplysninger, bedes du kontakte register@clinicaltrials.gov. Så snart en ændring er implementeret på clinicaltrials.gov, vil denne også blive opdateret automatisk på vores hjemmeside .

Kliniske forsøg med Patienttilfredshed

Abonner