| Title |
Racial Discrimination in Health Care Is Associated with Worse Glycemic Control among Black Men but Not Black Women with Type 2 Diabetes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Public Health, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpubh.2017.00235 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Shervin Assari, Daniel B. Lee, Emily Joy Nicklett, Maryam Moghani Lankarani, John D. Piette, James E. Aikens |
| Abstract |
A growing body of research suggests that racial discrimination may affect the health of Black men and Black women differently. This study examined Black patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) in order to test gender differences in (1) levels of perceived racial discrimination in health care and (2) how perceived discrimination relates to glycemic control. A total of 163 Black patients with type 2 DM (78 women and 85 men) provided data on demographics (age and gender), socioeconomic status, perceived racial discrimination in health care, self-rated health, and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). Data were analyzed using linear regression. Black men reported more racial discrimination in health care than Black women. Although racial discrimination in health care was not significantly associated with HbA1c in the pooled sample (b = 0.20, 95% CI = -0.41 -0.80), gender-stratified analysis indicated an association between perceived discrimination and higher HbA1c levels for Black men (b = 0.86, 95% confidence intervals (CI) = 0.01-1.73) but not Black women (b = -0.31, 95% CI = -1.17 to -0.54). Perceived racial discrimination in diabetes care may be more salient for glycemic control of Black men than Black women. Scholars and clinicians should take gender into account when considering the impacts of race-related discrimination experiences on health outcomes. Policies should reduce racial discrimination in the health care. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 43% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 3 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 43% |
| Members of the public | 3 | 43% |
| Scientists | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 49 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 14% |
| Researcher | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 10% |
| Other | 5 | 10% |
| Unknown | 16 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 18% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 14% |
| Psychology | 5 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 10% |
| Unknown | 16 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 448. 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 20 May 2022.
All research outputs
#59,124
of 24,652,007 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#55
of 12,899 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,289
of 320,476 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#3
of 98 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,652,007 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,899 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 320,476 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 98 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 97% of its contemporaries.