↓ Skip to main content

Decomposing the Gap in Satisfaction with Provider Communication Between English- and Spanish-Speaking Hispanic Patients

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
Title
Decomposing the Gap in Satisfaction with Provider Communication Between English- and Spanish-Speaking Hispanic Patients
Published in
Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, October 2012
DOI 10.1007/s10903-012-9733-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jennifer Villani, Karoline Mortensen

Abstract

Disparities in patient-provider communication exist among racial/ethnic groups. Hispanics report the lowest satisfaction with provider communication compared to whites and blacks; these differences may be due to level of acculturation or patient-provider concordance according to their ability to speak English. Using data from the 2007-2009 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, this study identifies and quantifies the components that constitute the gap in satisfaction with provider communication between English- and Spanish-speaking Hispanics. English-speaking Hispanics are 7.3 percentage points more likely to be satisfied with the amount of time their providers spent with them compared to Spanish-speaking Hispanics. Differences in acculturation between the two groups account for 77% of this gap. Satisfaction with provider listening is 6.8 percentage points higher for English-speaking Hispanics. Hispanics who speak English are more satisfied with provider communication. The gap in satisfaction is largely attributable to differences in health insurance, acculturation, and education.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 56 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 16%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 20 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 16%
Social Sciences 7 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 9%
Psychology 3 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 23 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 January 2016.
All research outputs
#4,035,805
of 23,867,274 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health
#241
of 1,261 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,645
of 177,639 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health
#5
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,867,274 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,261 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 177,639 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.