↓ Skip to main content

Some Advice for Physicians and Other Clinicians Treating Minorities, Women, and Other Patients at Risk of Receiving Health Care Disparities

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities, June 2016
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 (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
136 Mendeley
Title
Some Advice for Physicians and Other Clinicians Treating Minorities, Women, and Other Patients at Risk of Receiving Health Care Disparities
Published in
Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities, June 2016
DOI 10.1007/s40615-016-0248-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Augustus A. White, Beauregard Stubblefield-Tave

Abstract

Studies of inequalities in health care have documented 13 groups of patients who receive disparate care. Disparities are partly due to socioeconomic factors, but nonsocioeconomic factors also play a large contributory role. This article reviews nonsocioeconomic factors, including unconscious bias, stereotyping, racism, gender bias, and limited English proficiency. The authors discuss the clinician's role in addressing these factors and reducing their impact on the quality of health care. They indicate the significance of cultural humility on the part of caregivers as a means of amelioration. Based on a review of the clinician's role as well as background considerations in the health care environment, the authors put forward a set of 18 recommendations in the form of a checklist. They posit that implementing these recommendations as part of the patient clinician interaction will maximize the delivery of equitable care, even in the absence of desirable in-depth cross-cultural and psychosocial literacy on the part of the clinician. Trust, mutual respect, and understanding on the part of the caregiver and patient are crucial to optimizing therapeutic outcomes. The guidelines incorporated here are tools to furthering this goal.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 136 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 136 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 16 12%
Student > Master 13 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 9%
Other 9 7%
Student > Bachelor 9 7%
Other 34 25%
Unknown 43 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 13%
Social Sciences 15 11%
Psychology 12 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Other 16 12%
Unknown 41 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 23 March 2022.
All research outputs
#2,181,946
of 24,224,854 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities
#185
of 1,126 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,560
of 351,409 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities
#3
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,224,854 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,126 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 351,409 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.