Ethnic differences in patients’ perceptions towards isolated orthopedic injuries: a pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients' perceptions of their healthcare have been reported to influence clinical outcomes following orthopedic trauma. Findings across clinical outcomes have demonstrated significant differences in perceptions towards healthcare between Hispanics and non-Hispanic whites. However, ethnic disparities in perceptions towards orthopedic injuries have not been examined in the literature. AIM OF STUDY: The aim of this pilot study is to explore whether Hispanic patients with isolated orthopedic injuries will demonstrate different perceptions towards their injury as compared to non-Hispanic white patients. The pilot data will be used to inform a subsequent larger clinical investigation and interventional study. METHODS: A total of 43 patients (31 Hispanics and 12 non-Hispanic whites) with isolated orthopedic injuries requiring surgical treatment were enrolled in this cross-sectional observational pilot study. Outcome measures included the Questionnaire of Perceived Injustice (QPI), Short-Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36v2), Pain Catastrophizing Scale, and Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Cultural Competence (CC) item set. RESULTS: The CAHPS was completed by 34 patients, and the remaining scoring systems were completed by all 43 subjects enrolled in this study. Hispanic patients trended towards higher QPI scores indicating poorer outcomes than non-Hispanic whites (mean difference [MD] 5.4, 95%; confidence interval [CI] - 4.4, 15.2). The mental component summary score of the SF-36 trended lower in Hispanics as compared to non-Hispanic white (MD - 6.8, 95%; CI - 15.0, 1.4). Hispanic patients also expressed less trust in their doctor on a scale from 0 to 10 (MD - 1.0, 95%; CI - 1.9, - 0.1). CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests ethnic differences in patients' perceptions towards isolated orthopedic injuries. These results must be interpreted cautiously given the limited number of subjects in this pilot examination. We collected sufficient data to allow a sample size calculation for a subsequent larger clinical investigation. Future clinical investigations may determine the influence of ethnic differences in patients' perceptions towards orthopedic injuries, identify their impact on the functional outcomes, and establish intervention strategies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".