Patient-Physician Language Concordance and Cardiovascular Outcomes Among Patients With Hypertension
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Importance: Patients who live in minority language communities often receive health care services of lower quality and safety compared with patients who speak the majority language. Yet the outcomes associated with care provided by physicians who speak a patient's primary language remain unknown. Objective: To examine patient-physician language concordance and the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) among patients with hypertension. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study identified adults with self-reported hypertension in the Canadian Community Health Survey, a national survey that collects data from a representative sample of Canadians, from January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2014. Respondents (excluding those living in Quebec) had their hospitalization and mortality records linked to their survey responses. Data were analyzed from October 2023 to May 2024. Exposures: Respondents' primary home language was defined using language spoken most often at home. Language spoken with a regular physician was used to measure patient-physician language concordance. Respondents who spoke to their regular physician in their primary home language were classified as having received language-concordant care, while all other respondents were classified as having received language-discordant care. Main Outcomes and Measures: MACEs within 5 years of survey completion. Results: Among the 124 583 patients included in this study, 114 239 (91.7%) spoke English, 4790 (3.8%) spoke French, 325 (0.3%) spoke an Indigenous language, and 5229 (4.2%) spoke an allophone (ie, other) language. The mean (SD) age of the cohort was 63.7 (14.8) years; 57.1% of the patients reported their sex as female. Very few respondents who spoke an Indigenous language at home (<4.6%) received language-concordant care. For French-speaking patients, there was no statistically significant difference in the risk of MACE between those who received language-concordant care and those who received language-discordant care (hazard ratio [HR], 1.09; 95% CI, 0.86-1.36). Allophone-speaking patients who received language-concordant care were 36% less likely to experience MACE (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.51-0.80) compared with allophone-speaking patients who received language-discordant care. Conclusions and Relevance: This retrospective cohort study found large disparities in both access to language-concordant care and risk of MACEs. These findings suggest that language-concordant care could potentially improve the health of individuals in minority language communities.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».