Referrals and Black-White Coronary Heart Disease Treatment Disparities: A Qualitative Study of Primary Care Physician Perspectives.

IF 4.3 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of General Internal Medicine Pub Date : 2024-11-13 DOI:10.1007/s11606-024-09175-x
Nabeel Qureshi, Sandra Berry, Cheryl L Damberg, Ben Gibson, Ioana Popescu
{"title":"Referrals and Black-White Coronary Heart Disease Treatment Disparities: A Qualitative Study of Primary Care Physician Perspectives.","authors":"Nabeel Qureshi, Sandra Berry, Cheryl L Damberg, Ben Gibson, Ioana Popescu","doi":"10.1007/s11606-024-09175-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Black-White coronary heart disease (CHD) treatment disparities are well documented, especially regarding the use of high-quality hospitals. Physician referral networks may play a role.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To understand how primary care physicians (PCPs) make specialty referrals for CHD treatment and how referrals may contribute to treatment disparities.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>We purposively recruited 45 PCPs (50 invited, 90% response rate) in three metro areas with high Black-White segregation of cardiac care networks (New York City; Chicago; Atlanta).</p><p><strong>Approach: </strong>We developed the focus group discussion guide from interviews and current literature. We conducted two focus groups per metro area via Zoom. Two expert team members independently coded the transcripts using inductive techniques and analyzed focus group content and themes using Dedoose.</p><p><strong>Key results: </strong>Most participants were male (62.2%), White (57.8%), and practiced for at least 23 years. We identified several recurrent themes for factors influencing cardiology referrals. The most frequently mentioned themes were heavy reliance on professional networks, specialist availability, timeliness, communication style, patient geographic and economic constraints, and patient preferences. PCPs used anecdotal and not data-driven evidence to assess hospital quality and viewed Black-White differences in high-quality hospital use as due to patient economic status and preferences or differences in hospital access and provider referral bias.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>PCPs' referral decisions for CHD treatment are primarily driven by access to specific professional networks and the socioeconomic circumstances of their patients. Nevertheless, PCPs strive to make the best available decisions, leaning into their networks and honoring patient preferences. While PCPs acknowledged existing disparities, they attributed them to patient and system factors rather than provider referral bias. Mitigating disparities will require interventions to improve minority-serving providers' formal and informal connections with high-quality specialists and hospitals, address patient socioeconomic constraints, and train providers to recognize their potential biases and misconceptions.</p>","PeriodicalId":15860,"journal":{"name":"Journal of General Internal Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of General Internal Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-024-09175-x","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Black-White coronary heart disease (CHD) treatment disparities are well documented, especially regarding the use of high-quality hospitals. Physician referral networks may play a role.

Objective: To understand how primary care physicians (PCPs) make specialty referrals for CHD treatment and how referrals may contribute to treatment disparities.

Design: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions.

Participants: We purposively recruited 45 PCPs (50 invited, 90% response rate) in three metro areas with high Black-White segregation of cardiac care networks (New York City; Chicago; Atlanta).

Approach: We developed the focus group discussion guide from interviews and current literature. We conducted two focus groups per metro area via Zoom. Two expert team members independently coded the transcripts using inductive techniques and analyzed focus group content and themes using Dedoose.

Key results: Most participants were male (62.2%), White (57.8%), and practiced for at least 23 years. We identified several recurrent themes for factors influencing cardiology referrals. The most frequently mentioned themes were heavy reliance on professional networks, specialist availability, timeliness, communication style, patient geographic and economic constraints, and patient preferences. PCPs used anecdotal and not data-driven evidence to assess hospital quality and viewed Black-White differences in high-quality hospital use as due to patient economic status and preferences or differences in hospital access and provider referral bias.

Conclusion: PCPs' referral decisions for CHD treatment are primarily driven by access to specific professional networks and the socioeconomic circumstances of their patients. Nevertheless, PCPs strive to make the best available decisions, leaning into their networks and honoring patient preferences. While PCPs acknowledged existing disparities, they attributed them to patient and system factors rather than provider referral bias. Mitigating disparities will require interventions to improve minority-serving providers' formal and informal connections with high-quality specialists and hospitals, address patient socioeconomic constraints, and train providers to recognize their potential biases and misconceptions.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
转诊与黑人-白人冠心病治疗差异:对初级保健医生观点的定性研究。
背景:黑人与白人在冠心病(CHD)治疗方面的差异有据可查,尤其是在使用优质医院方面。医生转诊网络可能起到了一定的作用:了解初级保健医生(PCPs)如何为冠心病治疗进行专科转诊,以及转诊如何导致治疗差异:设计:采用半结构化访谈和焦点小组讨论的定性研究:我们有目的性地招募了 45 名初级保健医生(邀请 50 名,回复率 90%),他们分布在三个心脏病治疗网络高度黑白隔离的都会区(纽约市、芝加哥、亚特兰大):方法:我们根据访谈和现有文献制定了焦点小组讨论指南。我们通过 Zoom 在每个城市地区开展了两个焦点小组。两名专家组成员使用归纳法对记录誊本进行独立编码,并使用 Dedoose 分析焦点小组的内容和主题:大多数参与者为男性(62.2%)、白人(57.8%),从业时间至少 23 年。我们就影响心脏病学转诊的因素确定了几个重复出现的主题。最常提及的主题是对专业网络的严重依赖、专科医生的可用性、及时性、沟通方式、患者的地理和经济限制以及患者的偏好。初级保健医生使用轶事而非数据驱动的证据来评估医院质量,并认为黑人和白人在使用高质量医院方面的差异是由于患者的经济状况和偏好或医院就诊机会的差异以及医疗服务提供者的转诊偏差造成的:结论:初级保健医生转诊心脏病治疗的决定主要受特定专业网络的访问权限和患者的社会经济环境所驱动。尽管如此,初级保健医生仍努力做出最佳决定,充分利用其网络并尊重患者的偏好。虽然初级保健医生承认存在差异,但他们将其归因于患者和系统因素,而非提供者的转诊偏差。缩小差距需要采取干预措施,改善少数族裔服务提供者与高质量专科医生和医院的正式和非正式联系,解决患者的社会经济制约因素,并培训提供者认识到自己潜在的偏见和误解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of General Internal Medicine
Journal of General Internal Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
5.30%
发文量
749
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of General Internal Medicine is the official journal of the Society of General Internal Medicine. It promotes improved patient care, research, and education in primary care, general internal medicine, and hospital medicine. Its articles focus on topics such as clinical medicine, epidemiology, prevention, health care delivery, curriculum development, and numerous other non-traditional themes, in addition to classic clinical research on problems in internal medicine.
期刊最新文献
Discussing Weight with Patients in Primary Care in Australia: A Mixed Methods Experimental Study. Association of Observation Stays with Clinical Outcomes and Costs in Medicare: An Instrumental Variable Analysis. The Master Adaptive Clinician Educator: A Framework for Future Educational Leaders in Academic Medicine. Empagliflozin in Diuretic-Refractory Ascites (DRAin-Em): Results of a Single-Center Feasibility Study. Effectiveness of a Novel Global Telemedicine Curriculum for Medical Students.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1