Skip to main content
. 2010 Nov;100(11):2168–2175. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2009.181669

TABLE 1.

Summary of Participant Characteristics: Los Angeles County, CA, 2008

Total (N = 42), Mean ±SD or % (No. of participants) Underserved (n = 21), Mean ±SD or % (No. of participants) Nonunderserved (n = 21), Mean ±SD or % (No. of participants)
Age, y 48 ±12 50 ±14 46 ±10
Women 45 (19) 43 (9) 48 (10)
Marital status
    Married 60 (25) 57 (12) 62 (13)
    Single 19 (8) 29 (6) 10 (2)
    Divorced 10 (4) 10 (2) 10 (2)
    Other 11 (5) 4 (1) 8 (3)
Income distribution
    < $100 000 7 (3) 5 (1) 10 (2)
    $100 000–$149 999 26 (11) 24 (5) 28 (6)
    $150 000–$199 999 33 (14) 38 (8) 28 (6)
    $200 000–$250 000 31 (9) 19 (4) 24 (5)
    > $250 000 12 (5) 14 (3) 10 (2)
Educational debt
    $0 48 (20) 65 (13) 33 (7)
    < $100 000 29 (12) 20 (4) 38 (8)
    $100 000–$180 000 14 (6) 5 (1) 24 (5)
    > $180 000 7 (3) 10 (2) 5 (1)
    Refused or not available 2 (1) 5 (1) 0 (0)
Loan repayment and service obligation 21 (9) 24 (5) 19 (4)
Medical education
    California-based school 69 (29) 71 (15) 67 (14)
    Non-California public school 76 (32) 81 (17) 71 (15)
Residency training in California 69 (29) 67 (14) 71 (15)
Specialty distribution
    Family medicine 48 (20) 52 (11) 43 (9)
    Internal medicine 31 (13) 19 (4) 43 (9)
    Pediatrics 17 (7) 24 (5) 9 (2)
    Other primary care 5 (2) 5 (1) 5 (1)
Practice setting
    Staff model HMO or Kaiser 26 (11) 10 (2) 43 (9)
    Community or public clinic 31 (13) 62 (13) 0 (0)
    University 21 (9) 10 (2) 33 (7)
    Private practice 21 (9) 19 (4) 24 (5)

Note. There were no statistical differences between underserved and nonunderserved physicians, except for practice setting, using the χ2 test (P < .05).