The influence of patient and doctor gender on diagnosing coronary heart disease

Using novel methods, this paper explores sources of uncertainty and gender bias in primary care doctors' diagnostic decision-making about coronary heart disease (CHD). Claims about gendered consultation styles and quality of care are re-examined, along with the adequacy of CHD models for women. Randomly selected doctors in the UK and the US (n=112, 56 per country, stratified by gender) were shown standardised videotaped vignettes of actors portraying patients with CHD. Patients' age, gender, ethnicity and social class were varied systematically. During interviews, doctors gave free-recall accounts of their decision-making, which were analysed to determine patient and doctor gender effects. We found differences in male and female doctors' responses to different types of patient information. Female doctors recall more patient cues overall, particularly about history presentation, and particularly amongst women. Male doctors appear less affected by patient gender but both male and especially female doctors take more account of male patients' age, and consider more age-related disease possibilities for men than women. Findings highlight the need for better integration of knowledge about female presentations within accepted CHD risk models, and do not support the contention that women receive better-quality care from female doctors.

The influence of patient's age on clinical decision-making about coronary heart disease in the USA and the UK

This paper examines UK and US primary care doctors' decision-making about older (aged 75 years) and midlife (aged 55 years) patients presenting with coronary heart disease (CHD). Using an analytic approach based on conceptualising clinical decision-making as a classification process, it explores the ways in which doctors' cognitive processes contribute to ageism in health-care at three key decision points during consultations. In each country, 56 randomly selected doctors were shown videotaped vignettes of actors portraying patients with CHD. The patients' ages (55 or 75 years), gender, ethnicity and social class were varied systematically. During the interviews, doctors gave free-recall accounts of their decision-making. The results do not establish that there was substantial ageism in the doctors' decisions, but rather suggest that diagnostic processes pay insufficient attention to the significance of older patients' age and its association with the likelihood of co-morbidity and atypical disease presentations. The doctors also demonstrated more limited use of 'knowledge structures' when diagnosing older than midlife patients. With respect to interventions, differences in the national health-care systems rather than patients' age accounted for the differences in doctors' decisions. US doctors were significantly more concerned about the potential for adverse outcomes if important diagnoses were untreated, while UK general practitioners cited greater difficulty in accessing diagnostic tests.