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.

Attention:

The NSF Public Access Repository (PAR) system and access will be unavailable from 10:00 PM to 12:00 AM ET on Tuesday, March 25 due to maintenance. We apologize for the inconvenience.

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. (, 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
  3. ; ; (, 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
  4. ; ; ; ; ; (, Journal of Veterinary Medical Education)
    The veterinary medical workforce is increasingly female; occupational feminization often transfers stereotypes associated with the predominant gender onto the profession. It is unknown whether within veterinary medicine a feminized public image is a possible contributor to the reduction in male applicants to training programs. The influence of stereotypically gendered messaging on how male and female undergraduate students perceive veterinary medicine was investigated in 482 undergraduate students enrolled in five introductory or second-level biology courses. Two short videos introducing the field of veterinary medicine were developed with imagery and language selected to emphasize either stereotypic feminine ( communal) or masculine ( agentic) aspects of the field. Participant groups were randomly assigned one of the two videos (feminine/communal or masculine/agentic) or no video (no exposure). An outcome survey elicited impressions of the field of veterinary medicine and gathered demographic data. There was a significant linear trend of condition on perception of the profession as feminine or masculine and on perception of the activities of a veterinarian as feminine/communal or masculine/agentic. Female participants were significantly more likely to agree that someone of their gender would be valued in the profession. Male participants reported significantly higher self-efficacy scores for performing the tasks of a veterinarian when they viewed the feminine stereotype video. These results demonstrate that gendered perceptions of the field can be manipulated. Intentional gendered messaging should be further explored as one strategy to broaden the talent pool in the workforce by attracting men back to the field. 
    more » « less
  5. ; ; ; ; ; ; (, Behavioral Ecology)
    Abstract Female reproductive maturation is a critical life-history milestone, initiating an individual’s reproductive career. Studies in social mammals have often focused on how variables related to nutrition influence maturation age in females. However, parallel investigations have identified conspicuous male-mediated effects in which female maturation is sensitive to the presence and relatedness of males. Here, we evaluated whether the more “classic” socioecological variables (i.e., maternal rank, group size) predict maturation age in wild geladas—a primate species with known male-mediated effects on maturation and a grassy diet that is not expected to generate intense female competition. Females delayed maturation in the presence of their fathers and quickly matured when unrelated, dominant males arrived. Controlling for these male effects, however, higher-ranking daughters matured at earlier ages than lower-ranking daughters, suggesting an effect of within-group contest competition. However, contrary to predictions related to within-group scramble competition, females matured earliest in larger groups. We attribute this result to either: 1) a shift to “faster” development in response to the high infant mortality risk posed by larger groups; or 2) accelerated maturation triggered by brief, unobserved male visits. While earlier ages at maturation were indeed associated with earlier ages at first birth, these benefits were occasionally offset by male takeovers, which can delay successful reproduction via spontaneous abortion. In sum, rank-related effects on reproduction can still occur even when socioecological theory would predict otherwise, and males (and the risks they pose) may prompt female maturation even outside of successful takeovers. 
    more » « less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email