skip to main content
US FlagAn official website of the United States government
dot gov icon
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
https lock icon
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( lock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Explore Research Products in the PAR
It may take a few hours for recently added research products to appear in PAR search results.


Title: Gender Differences in Medical Evaluations: Evidence from Randomly Assigned Doctors
Little is known about what drives gender disparities in health care and related social insurance benefits. Using data and variation from the Texas workers’ compensation program, we study the impact of gender match between doctors and patients on medical evaluations and associated disability benefits. Compared to differences among their male patient counterparts, female patients randomly assigned a female doctor rather than a male doctor are 5.2 percent more likely to be evaluated as disabled and receive 8.6 percent more subsequent cash benefits on average. There is no analogous gender-match effect for male patients. Our estimates indicate that increasing the share of female patients evaluated by female doctors may substantially shrink gender gaps in medical evaluations and associated outcomes. (JEL H75, I11, I12, J14, J16, J28)  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1845190
PAR ID:
10497621
Author(s) / Creator(s):
;
Publisher / Repository:
NSF PAR
Date Published:
Journal Name:
American Economic Review
Volume:
114
Issue:
2
ISSN:
0002-8282
Page Range / eLocation ID:
462 to 499
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ; ; ; ; (, Journal of Medical Internet Research)
    Background Online physician reviews are an important source of information for prospective patients. In addition, they represent an untapped resource for studying the effects of gender on the doctor-patient relationship. Understanding gender differences in online reviews is important because it may impact the value of those reviews to patients. Documenting gender differences in patient experience may also help to improve the doctor-patient relationship. This is the first large-scale study of physician reviews to extensively investigate gender bias in online reviews or offer recommendations for improvements to online review systems to correct for gender bias and aid patients in selecting a physician. Objective This study examines 154,305 reviews from across the United States for all medical specialties. Our analysis includes a qualitative and quantitative examination of review content and physician rating with regard to doctor and reviewer gender. Methods A total of 154,305 reviews were sampled from Google Place reviews. Reviewer and doctor gender were inferred from names. Reviews were coded for overall patient experience (negative or positive) by collapsing a 5-star scale and coded for general categories (process, positive/negative soft skills), which were further subdivided into themes. Computational text processing methods were employed to apply this codebook to the entire data set, rendering it tractable to quantitative methods. Specifically, we estimated binary regression models to examine relationships between physician rating, patient experience themes, physician gender, and reviewer gender). Results Female reviewers wrote 60% more reviews than men. Male reviewers were more likely to give negative reviews (odds ratio [OR] 1.15, 95% CI 1.10-1.19; P<.001). Reviews of female physicians were considerably more negative than those of male physicians (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.94-2.14; P<.001). Soft skills were more likely to be mentioned in the reviews written by female reviewers and about female physicians. Negative reviews of female doctors were more likely to mention candor (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.42-1.82; P<.001) and amicability (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.47-1.90; P<.001). Disrespect was associated with both female physicians (OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.35-1.51; P<.001) and female reviewers (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.19-1.35; P<.001). Female patients were less likely to report disrespect from female doctors than expected from the base ORs (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.04-1.32; P=.008), but this effect overrode only the effect for female reviewers. Conclusions This work reinforces findings in the extensive literature on gender differences and gender bias in patient-physician interaction. Its novel contribution lies in highlighting gender differences in online reviews. These reviews inform patients’ choice of doctor and thus affect both patients and physicians. The evidence of gender bias documented here suggests review sites may be improved by providing information about gender differences, controlling for gender when presenting composite ratings for physicians, and helping users write less biased reviews. 
    more » « less
  2. ; ; (, Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction)
    Remote Patient Monitoring (RPM) devices transmit patients' medical indicators (e.g., blood pressure) from the patient's home testing equipment to their healthcare providers, in order to monitor chronic conditions such as hypertension. AI systems have the potential to enhance access to timely medical advice based on the data that RPM devices produce. In this paper, we report on three studies investigating how the severity of users' medical condition (normal vs. high blood pressure), security risk (low vs. modest vs. high risk), and medical advice source (human doctor vs. AI) influence user perceptions of advisor trustworthiness and willingness to disclose RPM-acquired information. We found that trust mediated the relationship between the advice source and users' willingness to disclose health information: users trust doctors more than AI and are more willing to disclose their RPM-acquired health information to a more trusted advice source. However, we unexpectedly discovered that conditional on trust, users disclose RPM-acquired information more readily to AI than to doctors. We observed that the advice source did not influence perceptions of security and privacy risks. We conclude by discussing how our findings can support the design of RPM applications. 
    more » « less
  3. (, ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM ’19),)
    In the era of big data, online doctor review platforms, which enable patients to give feedback to their doctors, have become one of the most important components in healthcare systems. On one hand, they help patients to choose their doctors based on the experience of others. On the other hand, they help doctors to improve the quality of their service. Moreover, they provide important sources for us to discover common concerns of patients and existing problems in clinics, which potentially improve current healthcare systems. In this paper, we systematically investigate the dataset from one of such review platform, namely, ratemds.com, where each review for a doctor comes with an overall rating and ratings of four different aspects. A comprehensive statistical analysis is conducted first for reviews, ratings, and doctors. Then, we explore the content of reviews by extracting latent topics related to different aspects with unsupervised topic modeling techniques. As the core component of this paper, we propose a multi-task learning framework for the document-level multi-aspect sentiment classification. This task helps us to not only recover missing aspect-level ratings and detect inconsistent rating scores but also identify aspect-keywords for a given review based on ratings. The proposed model takes both features of doctors and aspect-keywords into consideration. Extensive experiments have been conducted on two subsets of ratemds dataset to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed model. 
    more » « less
  4. ; ; (, Social Development)
    Abstract In response to some resource inequalities, children give priority to moral concerns. Yet, in others, children show ingroup preferences in their evaluations and resource allocations. The present study built upon this knowledge by investigating children's and young adults’ (N = 144; 5–6‐year‐olds,Mage = 5.83,SDage= .97; 9–11‐year‐olds,Mage = 10.74,SDage= .68; and young adults,Mage = 19.92,SDage = 1.10) evaluations and allocation decisions in a science inequality context. Participants viewed vignettes in which male and female groups received unequal amounts of science supplies, then evaluated the acceptability of the resource inequalities, allocated new boxes of science supplies between the groups, and provided justifications for their choices. Results revealed both children and young adults evaluated inequalities of science resources less negatively when girls were disadvantaged than when boys were disadvantaged. Further, 5‐ to 6‐year‐old participants and male participants rectified science resource inequalities to a greater extent when the inequality disadvantaged boys compared to when it disadvantaged girls. Generally, participants who used moral reasoning to justify their responses negatively evaluated and rectified the resource inequalities, whereas participants who used group‐focused reasoning positively evaluated and perpetuated the inequalities, though some age and participant gender findings emerged. Together, these findings reveal subtle gender biases that may contribute to perpetuating gender‐based science inequalities both in childhood and adulthood. 
    more » « less
  5. ; ; ; ; (, Social Psychology of Education)
    Abstract Interethnic bullying that targets ethnic minority students has serious consequences for the lives of victimized students. Teachers’ evaluations of the bullying are critical because teacher intervention can stop bullying and improve the adjustment of victimized students. Because the literature has documented partially overlapping biases against people of Arab ethnicity and people with refugee backgrounds, this study investigated whether teachers’ attitudes toward refugees play a role in their evaluations of the interethnic bullying of an Arab student. Teachers (n = 373; 77% female) who participated in the study filled the Threats–Benefits Inventory (TBI) that measured two types of attitudes toward refugees (perceiving refugees as a threat and perceiving refugees as a benefit) and evaluated a hypothetical vignette of interethnic bullying targeted at an Arab student. SEM analysis, controlling for gender, age, and contact with refugees, indicated that teachers’ attitudes toward refugees were not associated with their perceptions of the interethnic bullying as wrong or with their willingness to intervene. However, viewing refugees as a source of high threat or low benefit was consistently associated with lower recognition of the negative outcomes of the interethnic bullying. Moreover, a greater willingness to intervene positively associated with female gender and increasing age. The study suggests that teachers’ attitudes toward refugees may contribute to underestimating negative outcomes of interethnic bullying among students. To foster appropriate evaluations of interethnic bullying, teacher education should aim to promote understanding of different marginalized groups and to reduce biases against people with refugee backgrounds. 
    more » « less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email