Abstract
Video Abstract
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate racial and ethnic differences in communication quality during family centered rounds.
METHODS
We conducted an observational study of family-centered rounds on hospital day 1. All enrolled caregivers completed a survey following rounds and a subset consented to audio record their encounter with the medical team. We applied a priori defined codes to transcriptions of the audio-recorded encounters to assess objective communication quality, including medical team behaviors, caregiver participatory behaviors, and global communication scores. The surveys were designed to measure subjective communication quality. Incident Rate Ratios (IRR) were calculated with regression models to compare the relative mean number of behaviors per encounter time minute by race and ethnicity.
RESULTS
Overall, 202 of 341 eligible caregivers completed the survey, and 59 had accompanying audio- recorded rounds. We found racial and ethnic differences in participatory behaviors: English-speaking Latinx (IRR 0.5; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.3–0.8) Black (IRR 0.6; 95% CI 0.4–0.8), and Spanish-speaking Latinx caregivers (IRR 0.3; 95% CI 0.2–0.5) participated less than white caregivers. Coder-rated global ratings of medical team respect and partnership were lower for Black and Spanish-speaking Latinx caregivers than white caregivers (respect 3.1 and 2.9 vs 3.6, P values .03 and .04, respectively: partnership 2.4 and 2.3 vs 3.1, P values .03 and .04 respectively). In surveys, Spanish-speaking caregivers reported lower subjective communication quality in several domains.
CONCLUSIONS
In this study, Black and Latinx caregivers were treated with less partnership and respect than white caregivers.
What’s Known on This Subject:
Racial and ethnic disparities exist in the experience of family-centered rounds for caregivers (parents, guardians, or family members) of hospitalized children.
What This Study Adds:
We assessed communication quality via coding audio recordings of family-centered rounds. We found Black and Spanish-speaking Latinx caregivers received poorer medical team communication in domains of respect and partnership than white caregivers.
In the inpatient pediatric setting, poor communication between caregivers (ie, parents or guardians) of hospitalized children and the medical team contributes to negative health outcomes. These include parent-reported medical errors, suboptimal hospital experience, lack of shared understanding of the child’s care plan, and risk of readmission.1–5 During a child’s hospitalization, most communication with caregivers occurs during daily “family-centered rounds,” a bedside rounding practice in which the entire hospital care team discusses the child’s medical condition and plan with the caregiver.6,7 Although ideally clinicians seek to incorporate caregiver values into the care plan, caregivers report rarely participating fully.8 This may be particularly true for Black, Latinx, and other caregivers of color if racial and ethnic differences in communication mirrors that found among adult patients.
Black and Latinx adults have been shown to experience worse communication quality, as evidenced by less patient-centered language, engagement in decision-making, positive affect, and respect as compared with white patients.9–14 Differences in medical team communication can impact patient participation and activation,15–17 which is important for optimal health outcomes. When patients and caregivers are more active partners in medical encounters, it can lead to greater clinician-caregiver alignment around medical decisions,15,18–20 identification of information missing from the medical chart, and prevention of medical errors.21,22 Surveys and interviews of caregivers about their experience with family-centered rounds have found Black and Spanish-speaking caregivers report less comfort asking questions compared with their white and English-speaking counterparts, which may reflect differences in clinician communication behaviors.17,23–25 However, there remains a need to better understand racial and ethnic differences in communication quality on family-centered rounds to focus future interventions.
In this study, we sought to evaluate differences in subjective and objective measures of caregiver-clinician communication quality by race and ethnicity. We selected measures for which racial differences in communication quality are known to exist9–11,26,27 and measured caregiver participatory behaviors, as previous work suggested racial and ethnic differences in caregiver comfort participating in rounds.23 We included a measure of perceived autonomy support to evaluate if medical team behaviors were contributing to differences in caregiver comfort participating in rounds. Lastly, we stratified our Latinx population into English and Spanish speaking given prior studies demonstrating communication through an interpreter can influence communication quality independent of race and ethnicity.28–30 We hypothesized that our findings would mirror adult populations with Black and Latinx caregivers receiving less partnership, lower respect, and more hurried communication than white caregivers.9–11,26,27
Methods
Study Design, Setting, and Population
We conducted a cross-sectional observational study of racial, ethnic, and language differences in measures of communication quality between clinicians and caregivers of children admitted to the general pediatric service at a tertiary care center. Our institution averages approximately 2500 admissions to general pediatrics per year, of whom 31% self-identify as Black, 49% as white, 10% as Latinx, and 10% as another race or ethnicity. We oversampled Black and Latinx families for greater power to detect racial and ethnic differences in communication with a goal of 80 non-Latinx Black (Black), 80 non-Latinx white (white), and 40 Latinx (any race) caregivers. We approached caregivers whose child’s race and ethnicity was Black, Latinx, or white in the electronic medical record. Caregivers were eligible if they were adults (≥18 years of age), fluent in English or Spanish, and identified as a primary caregiver (parent or guardian) of a hospitalized child on the general pediatrics team. We limited languages to English and Spanish, given these are the predominant languages in our racial and ethnic groups of interest. We excluded caregivers of children undergoing evaluation for child abuse or neglect and those admitted for a primary psychiatric condition.
We identified caregivers through daily monitoring of the inpatient general pediatric team lists through the electronic health record Monday through Friday. We approached caregivers on the child’s first hospital day (within 24 hours of admission) and consented before rounds. Enrolled caregivers completed a survey immediately following rounds. Because of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) policies, most children had a single caregiver present with them during this study. In rare cases where more than 1 caregiver was present, we asked them to identify the primary caregiver to answer the survey questions. We selected the first hospital day to sample communication as we hypothesized that team communication on the first day would be more standardized, include greater medical decision-making, and involve more questions from caregivers than subsequent days.31 Once per week we performed audio-recordings of rounds on each of the 2 general pediatrics teams with a goal of recruiting 20 Black, 20 Latinx (half with Spanish as preferred language), and 20 white caregivers. Our institution has an established system for requesting an in-person interpreter during rounds, which is the general practice for caregivers with a preferred language other than English. Caregivers were approached and completed written consent to perform audio-recordings before rounds. Healthcare providers were given information about the study and the opportunity to opt out of being recorded 1 week before enrollment.
We used REDCap, a secure database with survey capability, to collect and store participant data.32,33 This study was approved by our Institutional Review Board and all caregivers underwent written consent before participating. Caregivers were compensated $10.00.
Measures
Demographics
We collected caregiver age, gender, highest educational level, financial security, child insurance, child age, and whether their child had a previous hospitalization (excluding birth admission). In analyses, we transformed age into a binary variable, less than 10 years or 10 years or greater, as we reasoned children 10 years or older may become more involved in conversations with doctors and influence how teams communicate with caregivers. Financial security was defined as “high” if caregivers selected “after paying the bills you still have enough money for special things you want;” “medium” if caregivers selected “you have enough money to pay the bills, but little spare money to buy extra or special things;” or “low” if caregivers selected “you have money to pay the bills, but only because you cut back on things” or “you have trouble paying the bills no matter what you do.” Caregivers were asked to self-identify their race, and if they selected more than 1 race, we asked them the race with which they most strongly identified. We also assessed ethnicity (ie, Hispanic or Latinx). Caregivers were excluded from analyses if they declined to answer the questions on race or identified as a race or ethnicity other than Black, white or Latinx. We coded Latinx caregivers as preferring Spanish if they had a Spanish interpreter during rounds.
Subjective Measures of Communication
Consented caregivers completed an 84-item survey immediately following rounds (Supplemental Information 1: Caregiver Survey). Two independent bilingual Spanish-speakers translated and back-translated our survey. The survey took approximately 10 to 15 minutes to complete and included the following measures:
Interpersonal Processes of Care (IPC): an instrument to measure patient perceptions of care that has been validated in English-speaking and Spanish-speaking Latinx adult patients. The IPC has not been studied or validated in pediatric populations; we modified items to make them appropriate for this use (ie, “your child’s doctors” rather than “your doctors”). The measure includes several subdomains, each of which serves as an independent predictor.26 Average scores for each domain were calculated and dichotomized to top score (ie, average score 5 for positive domain and 1 for negative domain) yes or no because of large ceiling and floor effects.
Perceived autonomy support: caregivers responded to a 15-item scale to assess how well physicians supported their autonomy using the validated health care climate questionnaire.34 Perceived autonomy support was dichotomized to a response of “strongly agree” for all 15 items versus all other responses.
Empowerment: we used a 5-point Likert scale to measure agreement with a statement of caregiver empowerment and comfort to participate in rounds (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree) and dichotomized to top score response.
Objective Measures
On hospital day 1, we obtained audio recordings via a research-encrypted iPad. All files were stored on a secure research folder behind an institutional firewall. We transcribed audio-recordings verbatim and developed a codebook a priori using validated instruments reported by Street et al.35 We included counts of medical team behaviors, caregiver participatory behaviors, and global ratings of communication (Supplemental Information 2: Objective Measures Codebook). Bilingual audio-recordings were transcribed, coded, and analyzed in English. Two authors (V.P. and H.R., attending hospitalist and medical student) coded the encounters. Coders were blinded to caregiver race and ethnicity. V.P. and H.R. compared codes until they achieved reliability (n = 14 transcriptions) and then, the remainder were coded by a single individual. In 3 instances, 2 caregivers were present, and their participatory behaviors were tallied together. Patient participatory behaviors were not included in the count of caregiver participatory behaviors.
Statistical Analyses
We summarized medical team behaviors and caregiver participatory behaviors as total counts over the encounter. We examined associations between caregiver race, ethnicity, and language and these count outcomes via generalized linear models, with appropriate link outcome (either Poisson or Negative Binomial where there was evidence of overdispersion) and offset term accounting for encounter length in minutes. We used descriptive statistics and goodness of fit test statistics to determine whether overdispersion was present. Additionally, we assessed outcomes for presence of clustering by attending physician. Because of the wide variation in number of caregivers per physician in our sample, we followed recommendations by Li and Redden (2015) using the Fay and Graubard-corrected sandwich estimator for SE estimation where evidence of clustering was found.36 Incident rate ratios (IRR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals summarized the relative mean number of behaviors per encounter time minute between the groups. We performed a sensitivity analysis, where we calculated the IRR using the rate of each behavior per time in a caregivers preferred language to compare rates of behaviors in our Spanish-speaking caregivers (time in Spanish) to non-Latinx white caregivers (time in English).
We examined associations between caregiver race and ethnicity and outcomes of global ratings of the conversation via general linear models accounting for clustering by attending physician. Unadjusted models only included the race, ethnicity, and language variable, whereas adjusted models additionally included if the child had any prior hospitalizations and child age (≤10 vs 11 years or more). We were unable to include covariates of socioeconomic status (education, income, or insurance) in the audio-recording analyses because of a lack of heterogeneity in our Latinx population (Supplemental Tables 6 and 7).
In the full sample of caregivers, we assessed associations between caregiver race and ethnicity and the dichotomized survey outcomes via logistic regression. Again, we examined outcomes for the presence of clustering by attending physician, and where possible, model estimation incorporated the Fay and Graubard-corrected sandwich estimator. Covariates in adjusted models included insurance (Medicaid), previous hospitalization (yes), and older children (11 or older). We conducted analyses utilizing SAS v9.4 (Cary, NC).
Results
We identified 341 eligible caregivers during study enrollment from August 2020 to June 2021 (Fig 1). Of the 341 eligible caregivers, 63 (19%) were not at the bedside, 26 (8%) were unavailable (eg, off the floor for procedures or imaging), or not approached because of infectious risk (eg, COVID-19 positive), and 39 (11%) declined to participate. A total of 213 (62%) of the 341 eligible caregivers completed the survey. We excluded 11 caregivers who completed the survey for declining to answer the race and ethnicity question or identifying as a race or ethnicity other than Black, white or Latinx resulting in a sample of 202 caregivers. On audio-recording days, 61 (79%) of the 77 eligible caregivers consented to the recordings; 5 declined to participate, 8 were not present, and 3 were unavailable (2 COVID-19 positive, 1 in a procedure).
FIGURE 1.
Study enrollment.
Of the 202 caregivers included in the study, 82 (41%) identified as white, 80 (40%) identified as Black, 40 (20%) identified as Latinx (Table 1). Of the 40 Latinx caregivers, 29 (73%) identified as “other” racial group. Most caregivers were the child’s parents (94%), female (87%), and 22 to 45 years old (77%). There were differences in the percent of children with Medicaid insurance by race and ethnicity and language; the children of 38% of white, 83% of Black, 88% of English-speaking Latinx, and 71% of Spanish-speaking Latinx caregivers had Medicaid. Admission diagnosis was variable (data not shown) with seizure or seizure-like activity being the most common (11%), and approximately half of the children had a previous hospitalization (Table 1).
TABLE 1.
Demographics and Characteristics of Caregivers Who Completed Survey and Their Children (n = 202)
| All Caregivers (n = 202) | White Caregivers (n = 82) | Black Caregivers (n = 80) | English-Speaking Latinx Caregivers (n = 16) | Spanish-Speaking Latinx Caregivers (n = 24) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Caregiver age, y | |||||
| 18–24 | 21 (10) | 6 (7) | 8 (10) | 5 (31) | 2 (8) |
| 25–44 | 156 (77) | 62 (76) | 64 (80) | 11 (69) | 19 (79) |
| 45 or more | 24 (12) | 14 (17) | 7 (9) | 0 (0) | 3 (13) |
| Caregiver gender | |||||
| Female | 175 (87) | 71 (87) | 68 (85) | 14 (88) | 22 (92) |
| Caregiver highest education achieved | |||||
| Less than high school | 22 (11) | 6 (7) | 6 (8) | 0 (0) | 10 (42) |
| High school | 107 (53) | 31 (38) | 54 (68) | 10 (63) | 12 (50) |
| College graduate | 47 (23) | 31 (38) | 11 (14) | 4 (25) | 1 (4) |
| Graduate or professional degree | 17 (8) | 14 (17) | 3 (4) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| Household financial securitya | |||||
| High | 76 (38) | 43 (52) | 29 (36) | 3 (19) | 1 (4) |
| Medium | 54 (27) | 20 (24) | 22 (28) | 6 (38) | 6 (25) |
| Low | 41 (20) | 14 (17) | 13 (16) | 4 (25) | 10 (42) |
| Missing or declined to answer | 31 (15) | 5 (6) | 16 (20) | 3 (19) | 7 (29) |
| Child’s insurance | |||||
| Medicaid | 128 (63) | 31 (38) | 66 (83) | 14 (88) | 17 (71) |
| Child age, y | |||||
| Less than 1 | 68 (34) | 24 (29) | 31 (39) | 6 (38) | 7 (29) |
| 1–5 | 62 (31) | 25 (31) | 28 (35) | 4 (25) | 5 (21) |
| 6–13 | 44 (22) | 22 (27) | 15 (19) | 2 (12) | 5 (21) |
| 14 or more | 28 (14) | 11 (13) | 6 (8) | 4 (25) | 7 (29) |
| Previous hospitalizationb | |||||
| Yes | 98 (49) | 46 (56) | 30 (38) | 11(69) | 11 (46) |
| Duke medical complexity levelc | |||||
| Previously healthy | 110 (55) | 37 (45) | 48 (60) | 8 (50) | 17 (71) |
| Child with special health care needs | 76 (38) | 35 (43) | 30 (38) | 6 (38) | 5 (21) |
| Child with medical complexity | 16 (8) | 10 (12) | 2 (3) | 2 (13) | 2 (8) |
Data are presented at n (%) unless otherwise indicated.
Caregivers were asked on the survey to describe their household financial situation. Financial security defined as “high” if caregivers selected “after paying the bills you still have enough money for special things you want;” “medium” if caregivers selected “you have enough money to pay the bills, but little spare money to buy extra or special things;” “low” if caregivers selected “you have money to pay the bills, but only because you cut back on things” OR “you have trouble paying the bills no matter what you do.”
Individuals counted as “yes” to previous hospitalization if caregiver reported their child had ever had a previous hospitalization (asked to exclude child’s birth admission in count of previous hospitalizations).
Duke Medical Complexity Level assigned per previously described methods.64
Medical team behaviors, including eliciting questions and empathic statements, were similar in terms of absolute values while controlling for encounter length across white, Black, and English-speaking Latinx caregivers; however, teams asked Spanish-speaking caregivers fewer open-ended questions and responded with fewer reflections than in encounters with white caregivers (IRR 0.3; 95% CI 0.1–0.7 and IRR 0.3; 95% CI 0.1–0.8, respectively) (Table 2). Black, English-speaking Latinx, and Spanish-speaking Latinx caregivers demonstrated significantly fewer caregiver participatory behaviors than white caregivers; the mean number of participatory behaviors was 8.3 for white caregivers (reference group), 5.8 for English-speaking Latinx caregivers (IRR 0.5; 95% CI 0.3–0.8), 5.1 for Black caregivers (IRR 0.6; 95% CI 0.4–0.8), and 3.3 for Spanish-speaking Latinx caregivers (IRR 0.3; 95% CI 0.2–0.5). In our global measures of medical team communication, Spanish-speaking Latinx and Black caregivers experienced lower scores of respect and partnership compared with white caregivers as well as borderline lower attentiveness to Spanish-speaking Latinx compared with white caregivers (Table 3 and Fig 2). In rounds with an interpreter present, time in Spanish ranged from 10% to 48% of the total time, with a median of 39% (Supplemental Table 8). In our sensitivity analyses, we used talk time in the caregiver’s preferred language rather than total encounter time as the offset term for calculating the IRR. In these analyses, we no longer found significant differences in rates of behaviors between Spanish-speaking caregivers and white caregivers. Of note, analyzing just this truncated section “rewards” encounters where less was interpreted, giving an open-ended question more weight in a short encounter with less time in Spanish, whereas in an absolute sense, this might not be clinically significant nor is it consistent with our observed differences between Spanish-speaking and white caregivers in the total count of behaviors (Table 3).
TABLE 2.
Comparison of Rate of Communication Behaviors per Minute of Encounter by Race, Ethnicity, and Language
| Black versus White Caregivers | English-Speaking Hispanic versus White Caregivers | Spanish-Speaking Latinx versus White Caregivers | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IRR (95% CI)c | aIRR (95% CI) | IRR (95% CI)c | aIRR (95% CI) | IRR (95% CI)c | aIRR (95% CI) | |
| Medical team behaviors | ||||||
| Number open-ended questionsa | 1.1 (0.7–1.9) | 1.2 (0.7–2.1) | 0.9 (0.6–1.3) | 0.9 (0.6–1.5) | 0.3 (0.1–0.7)* | 0.3 (0.1,0.7)* |
| Number of reflections | 1.3 (0.6–2.7) | 1.5 (0.7–2.9) | 1.7 (0.7–4.1) | 1.9 (0.9–3.9) | 0.4 (0.1–1.3) | 0.3 (0.1–0.8)* |
| Number of empathetic statements or responsesa | 0.9 (0.3–2.8) | 0.8 (0.3,2.2) | 0.3 (0.0–2.8) | 0.4 (0.0,3.0) | 0.3 (0.0–2.6) | 0.3 (0.0,2.6) |
| Number of times elicited questionsa | 1.9 (0.5–6.6) | 1.9 (0.7–5.2) | 2.3 (0.8–6.9) | 2.2 (0.8–6.4) | 1.1 (0.2–6.8) | 1.2 (0.2–6.8) |
| Caregiver participatory behaviors | ||||||
| Number of times asked a question | 0.7 (0.4–1.2) | 0.7 (0.4–1.2) | 0.6 (0.3–1.2) | 0.5 (0.3–1.1) | 0.4 (0.2–0.9)* | 0.4 (0.2–0.9)* |
| Number of times gave an assertive response | 0.5 (0.3–0.8)* | 0.5 (0.3–0.8)* | 0.6 (0.3–1.1) | 0.6 (0.3–1.1) | 0.3 (0.2–0.7)* | 0.4 (0.2–0.7)* |
| Number of times caregiver expressed an emotion | 0.6 (0.3–1.1) | 0.7 (0.4–1.5) | 0.2 (0.0–0.6)* | 0.1 (0.0–0.5)* | 0.1 (0.0–0.4)* | 0.1 (0.0–0.5)* |
| Total caregiver participatory behaviors | 0.6 (0.4–0.8)* | 0.6 (0.4–0.9)* | 0.5 (0.3–0.8)* | 0.5 (0.3–0.8)* | 0.3 (0.2–0.5)* | 0.3 (0.2–0.6)* |
Incident rate ratio (IRR; rate of behavior per minute of encounter) and 95% confidence intervals are from unadjusted models. Covariates include child age (11 or older) and prior hospitalization (yes). aIRR, adjusted incident rate ratio.
Marginal model estimation accounted for clustering.
P value < .05.
TABLE 3.
Mean Communication Behaviors and Global Ratings by Race, Ethnicity, and Language
| All Caregivers | White Caregivers | Black Caregivers | Hispanic-English Caregivers | Latinx-Spanish Caregivers | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n = 59 | n = 20 | n = 20 | n = 9 | n = 10 | |
| Medical team behaviorsb | |||||
| Number open-ended questions | 1.4 (1.2) | 1.4 (1.1) | 1.7 (1.5) | 1.4 (0.9) | 0.7 (0.7) |
| Number of reflections | 1.0 (1.5) | 0.9 (1.7) | 1.1 (1.4) | 1.7 (1.4) | 0.4 (1.0) |
| Number of empathetic statements or responses | 0.2 (0.4) | 0.3 (0.4) | 0.3 (0.4) | 0.1 (0.3) | 0.1 (0.3) |
| Number of times elicited questions | 0.3 (0.5) | 0.2 (0.4) | 0.3 (0.6) | 0.4 (0.7) | 0.2 (0.4) |
| Caregiver participatory behaviorsa,b | |||||
| Number of times asked a question | 2.5 (2.7) | 3.1 (2.8) | 2.4 (3.2) | 2.2 (2.2) | 1.6 (1.8) |
| Number of times gave an assertive response | 2.6 (2.7) | 3.6 (2.4) | 1.8 (1.3) | 3.2 (5.1) | 1.6 (1.6) |
| Number of times caregiver expressed an emotion | 0.9 (1.5) | 1.6 (1.9) | 1.0 (1.3) | 0.3 (0.7) | 0.1 (0.3) |
| Total caregiver participatory behaviors | 6.0 (5.2) | 8.3 (5.5) | 5.1 (4.6) | 5.8 (6.0) | 3.3 (3.2) |
| Global rating of team communicationb | |||||
| Flow | 3.0 (0.9) | 3.2 (0.8) | 2.9 (0.7) | 2.8 (1.4) | 2.9 (1.0) |
| Concerns | 2.8 (0.8) | 3.0 (0.9) | 2.6 (0.7) | 3.1 (1.1) | 2.8 (0.9) |
| Respect | 3.2 (0.8) | 3.6 (0.7) | 3.1 (0.7) | 3.0 (1.2) | 2.9 (0.9) |
| Warmth | 3.1 (0.9) | 3.1 (0.8) | 3.0 (0.9) | 3.6 (1.0) | 3.2 (0.8) |
| Attentive | 3.3 (0.9) | 3.6 (0.9) | 3.5 (0.9) | 3.1 (0.9) | 2.8 (1.0) |
| Partnership | 2.7 (1.0) | 3.1 (0.9) | 2.4 (0.9) | 2.9 (1.1) | 2.3 (0.8) |
Data presented as mean (SD) unless otherwise indicated.
Caregiver Participatory Behaviors coded per methods defined by Street et al.17
Details of coding schema provided in Supplement 2.
FIGURE 2.
Box plots of global measures of communication.
In the caregiver survey, a smaller proportion of Black caregivers strongly agreed with the statements “I had adequate time to ask questions” and strongly disagreed with the statement “I was afraid to ask questions” compared with their white counterparts, although these differences were not significant in adjusted models. A smaller proportion of Spanish-speaking Latinx caregivers strongly agreed with the statements “I felt comfortable participating in rounds,” “I had adequate time to ask questions,” and strongly disagreed with the statement “I was afraid to ask questions” (Tables 4 and 5). Spanish-speaking Latinx caregivers were also less likely to report always feeling that doctors were respectful compared with white caregivers (OR 0.4; 95% CI 0.2–0.9) and that their concerns were always elicited (OR 0.4; 95% CI 0.1–0.9).
TABLE 4.
Caregiver Reported Measures of Communication by Race, Ethnicity, and Language
| White Caregivers | Black Caregivers | Hispanic-English Caregivers | Latinx-Spanish Caregivers | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| n = 82 | n = 80 | n = 16 | n = 24 | |
| Empowerment statements | ||||
| “I felt comfortable participating in rounds,” n (% SA) | 60 (73) | 51 (64) | 11 (69) | 11 (46) |
| “I had adequate time to ask questions,” n (% SA) | 67 (82) | 52 (65) | 12 (75) | 11 (46) |
| “I was afraid to ask questions,” n (% SD) | 61 (74) | 42 (53) | 11 (69) | 4 (17) |
| “I felt like a partner,” n (% SA) | 40 (49) | 42 (53) | 7 (44) | 7 (29) |
| Perceived autonomy support n (% SA) | 26 (32) | 18 (23) | 3 (19) | 0 (0) |
| IPC domains | ||||
| Hurried communication, n (% never) | 34 (42) | 31 (39) | 6 (38) | 13 (54) |
| Elicited concerns, n (% always) | 56 (68) | 51 (64) | 10 (63) | 10 (42) |
| Explained results or tests, n (% always) | 51 (62) | 61 (76) | 11 (69) | 16 (67) |
| Shared decision making, n (% always) | 39 (48) | 28 (35) | 7 (44) | 8 (33) |
| Respectful, n (% always) | 62 (76) | 57 (71) | 9 (56) | 14 (58) |
| Discriminated because of race, n (% never) | 79 (96) | 74 (93) | 15 (94) | 21 (88) |
| Disrespectful hospital staff, n (% never) | 68 (83) | 69 (86) | 14 (88) | 23 (96) |
IPC, interpersonal processes of care; SA, strongly agree; SD, strongly disagree.
TABLE 5.
Comparison of Caregiver-reported Communication Measures by race, Ethnicity, and Language
| Black versus White | English-Speaking Hispanic versus White | Spanish-Speaking Hispanic versus White | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95% CI)a | aOR (95% CI)a | OR (95% CI)a | aOR (95% CI)a | OR (95% CI)a | aOR (95% CI)a | |
| Empowerment statements | ||||||
| “I felt comfortable participating in rounds,” % SA | 0.7 (0.4–1.3) | 0.9 (0.3–2.4) | 0.8 (0.3–2.7) | 1.1 (0.3–4.5) | 0.3 (0.1–0.8)* | 0.4 (0.1–1.0)* |
| “I had adequate time to ask questions,” % SA | 0.4 (0.2–1.0)* | 0.6 (0.2–1.8) | 0.7 (0.2–2.3) | 0.9 (0.2–4.0) | 0.2 (0.1–0.5)* | 0.2 (0.1–0.7)* |
| “I was afraid to ask questions,” % SD | 0.4 (0.2–0.7)* | 0.5 (0.2–1.3) | 1.3 (0.3–5.0) | 1.5(0.4–6.7) | 0.1 (0.0–0.3)* | 0.1 (0.0–0.3)* |
| “I felt like a partner,” % SA | 1.2 (0.6–2.2) | 1.1 (0.5–2.2) | 0.8 (0.3–2.4) | 0.8 (0.2–2.4) | 0.4 (0.2–1.2) | 0.4 (0.1–1.1) |
| Interpersonal processes of care domains | ||||||
| Hurried communication, % never | 0.9 (0.4–1.8) | 0.9 (0.4–2.4) | 0.8 (0.3–2.5) | 1.0 (0.4–2.6) | 1.6 (0.9–3.1) | 1.8 (0.8–4.1) |
| Elicited concerns, % always | 0.8 (0.4–1.6) | 1.0 (0.5–2.2) | 0.8 (0.3–2.1) | 0.9 (0.3–2.9) | 0.3 (0.1,1.0) | 0.4 (0.1–0.9)* |
| Explained results or tests, % always | 1.9 (0.9–3.7) | 1.6 (0.6–4.0) | 1.2 (0.4–3.8) | 0.7 (0.2–2.8) | 1.1 (0.4–2.9) | 0.8 (0.3–2.4) |
| Shared decision making, % always | 0.5 (0.3–1.1) | 0.6 (0.3–1.1) | 0.9 (0.4–2.1) | 1.2 (0.5–2.6) | 0.5 (0.2,1.1) | 0.5 (0.2–1.2) |
| Respectful, % always | 0.8 (0.3–2.2) | 0.7 (0.2–2.3) | 0.4 (0.1–1.4) | 0.4 (0.1–1.5) | 0.4 (0.2–0.9)* | 0.3 (0.2–0.8)* |
| Disrespectful office staff, % never | 1.3 (0.5–3.3) | 1.5 (0.4–5.7) | 1.4 (0.3–6.6) | 1.6 (0.4–6.3) | 4.7 (0.4–51.2) | 4.5 (0.3–63.3) |
Covariates include insurance (Medicaid), previous hospitalization (yes), and older child (11 or older). aOR, adjusted odds ratio.
Marginal model estimation accounted for clustering by attending.
P value < .05.
Discussion
In our study, we found racial and ethnic differences in subjective and objective measures of communication quality by race and ethnicity during family-centered rounds. Global ratings of medical team communication demonstrated lower respect and partnership for Black and Spanish-speaking Latinx caregivers than white caregivers. Additionally, medical teams asked fewer questions and responded with fewer reflections to Spanish-speaking Latinx caregivers. We also found Black and Latinx caregivers demonstrated fewer participatory behaviors compared with white caregivers. Concordantly, Black and Spanish-speaking Latinx caregivers were more likely to report not having adequate time to ask questions and fear of asking questions compared with white caregivers.
Evidence suggests clinician communication is one of the strongest drivers of caregiver participation.37 Clinician behaviors such as information giving, supportive talk, and partnership-building statements can all promote patient participation.17 Further, communication can be a reinforcing cycle where clinicians provide more information when patients are more active participants, and patients are more active when partnership-building statements are used by clinicians.12,17,38 In our study, the reasons for lower participation among Black and Spanish-speaking caregivers are unknown, yet consistent with prior studies.14,17,39,40 We found Spanish-speaking Latinx caregivers were asked fewer open-ended questions by the medical team, which has been associated with lower caregiver participation during rounds.41 In contrast, we did not find differences in medical team behaviors in encounters of Black versus white caregivers.
These findings may be explained in several ways. First, rounds were delivered the same to all families, yet the current approach worked better in empowering white caregiver participation because of cultural, historical, and other social group differences. Caregivers of color have been historically under-represented in research, and thus our current knowledge of caregiver preferences for communication is likely more representative of white families.42–45 Additionally, values of autonomy and assertiveness may not be equally endorsed across cultural backgrounds and can influence caregiver participation.46,47 A second explanation is that lower participation was driven by subtle communication differences, as captured in our global ratings of lower respect and partnership in Black compared with white caregivers. Lastly, it is possible there were differences in communication behaviors that we did not capture in our codes. For instance, we were limited to measures of verbal communication and it is possible nonverbal communication impacted caregiver participation.48 Importantly, communication behaviors can be taught, refined, and modeled to strengthen communication across differences of race, ethnicity, culture, and power.49 Some potential strategies to improve participation in rounds might include inviting caregivers to participate early and often, providing complete interpretation of rounds, active-listening to caregiver contributions, treating caregivers with dignity and respect, and requiring provider trainings on bias and cultural humility.50–53
Language-specific barriers may operate independently, or possibly synergistically, with implicit bias to impact communication quality. Although language barriers likely contribute to these differences, Spanish-speaking caregivers may also experience intersectional bias with skin color, class, gender, country of origin, immigration status, religion, cultural norms, or other identities.54 These dimensional nuances and heterogeneity within the Latinx population are not fully captured in our methods and require attention in future studies.55 Additionally, there was variability in the use of interpreters during rounds. For example, some teams would complete rounds in English, then summarize to the caregiver in Spanish, whereas others summarized the entire discussion with frequent pauses for interpretation. The former approach values efficiency over family-centeredness and has implications for caregiver trust, participation, and decision making.56–58
This study has several limitations. First, we do not know the demographics of caregivers not enrolled and thus our sample may not be representative of the total general pediatrics population at our institution. Second, we were unable to adjust for socioeconomic status on the audio-recording measures because of our sample size. This is important as there is conflicting evidence as to whether racial inequities in communication persist after adjusting for income and education.12,14,39,59 Third, we did not control for clinician-caregiver racial concordance or Spanish fluency and these factors have been shown to impact communication quality.10,13,60,61 However, there were no bilingual providers captured on the audio-recordings and only 2 attending physicians of color. Further, it would be hard to define concordance in this setting given there were multiple team members in the room. Fourth, it is possible that our method of coding Spanish-speaking did not capture caregivers who would have preferred Spanish but did not have an interpreter. Lastly, medical teams knew they were being recorded and thus might have altered their behavior.62 However, we would expect this potential bias to result in type II errors, as teams are more likely to be on their “best behavior” when being recorded.
In conclusion, our team found racial and ethnic differences in the quality of communication during family-centered rounds. Although family-centered rounds may promote humanistic care,63 our study suggests that family-centered rounds as currently practiced may not achieve inclusive and equitable communication outcomes for all families.
Supplementary Material
Footnotes
COMPANION PAPER A companion to this article can be found online at http://www.pediatrics.org/cgi/doi/10.1542/peds.2022-058962.
Dr Parente conceptualized and designed the study, coordinated and supervised data collection, performed data analyses, and drafted the initial manuscript; Drs Pollak, Svetkey, and Johnson conceptualized and designed the study; Dr Robles designed the data collection instruments; Ms Reid designed the data collection instruments and performed data analyses; Dr Olsen and Ms Sanders assisted with study design and performed statistical analyses; and all authors reviewed and revised the manuscript, approved the final manuscript as submitted, and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.
FUNDING: Support provided by the Duke Center for Research to Advance Healthcare Equity, which is supported by the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities under award number U54MD012530. This work was also supported by the Durham Center of Innovation to Accelerate Discovery and Practice Transformation, (CIN 13-410) at the Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System and by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number TL1 TR002555. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. Funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES The authors have indicated they have no conflicts of interest relevant to this article to disclose.
References
- 1. Lion KC, Rafton SA, Shafii J, et al. Association between language, serious adverse events, and length of stay among hospitalized children. Hosp Pediatr. 2013;3(3):219–225 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Berry JG, Ziniel SI, Freeman L, et al. Hospital readmission and parent perceptions of their child’s hospital discharge. Int J Qual Health Care. 2013;25(5):573–581 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Studdert DM, Burns JP, Mello MM, %Puopolo AL, Truog RD, Brennan TA. Nature of conflict in the care of pediatric intensive care patients with prolonged stay. Pediatrics. 2003;112 (3 Pt 1):553–558 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Khan A, Furtak SL, Melvin P, Rogers JE, Schuster MA, Landrigan CP. Parent- provider miscommunications in hospitalized children. Hosp Pediatr. 2017;7(9):505–515 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Khan A, Rogers JE, Forster CS, Furtak SL, Schuster MA, Landrigan CP. Communication and shared understanding between parents and resident-physicians at night. Hosp Pediatr. 2016;6(6): 319–329 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Sisterhen LL, Blaszak RT, Woods MB, Smith CE. Defining family-centered rounds. Teach Learn Med. 2007;19(3):319–322 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Mittal VS, Sigrest T, Ottolini MC, et al. Family-centered rounds on pediatric wards: a PRIS network survey of US and Canadian hospitalists. Pediatrics. 2010;126(1):37–43 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Subramony A, Hametz PA, Balmer D. Family-centered rounds in theory and practice: an ethnographic case study. Acad Pediatr. 2014;14(2):200–206 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Rivadeneyra R, Elderkin-Thompson V, %Silver RC, Waitzkin H. Patient centeredness in medical encounters requiring an interpreter. Am J Med. 2000;108(6):470–474 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Shen MJ, Peterson EB, Costas-Muñiz R, et al. The effects of race and racial concordance on patient-physician communication: a systematic review of the literature. J Racial Ethn Health Disparities. 2018;5(1): 117–140 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Johnson RL, Roter D, Powe NR, Cooper LA. Patient race/ethnicity and quality of patient-physician communication during medical visits. Am J Public Health. 2004;94(12):2084–2090 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Street RL Jr, Gordon H, Haidet P. Physicians’ communication and perceptions of patients: is it how they look, how they talk, or is it just the doctor? Soc Sci Med. 2007;65(3):586–598 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Cooper LA, Roter DL, Johnson RL, Ford DE, Steinwachs DM, Powe NR. Patient-centered communication, ratings of care, and concordance of patient and physician race. Ann Intern Med. 2003;139(11):907–915 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Cox ED, Nackers KA, Young HN, Moreno MA, Levy JF, Mangione-Smith RM. Influence of race and socioeconomic status on engagement in pediatric primary care. Patient Educ Couns. 2012;87(3):319–326 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Alegría M, Sribney W, Perez D, Laderman M, Keefe K. The role of patient activation on patient-provider communication and quality of care for US and foreign born Latino patients. J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24(Suppl 3):534–541 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Cegala DJ. An exploration of factors promoting patient participation in primary care medical interviews. Health Commun. 2011;26(5):427–436 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Street RL Jr, Gordon HS, Ward MM, %Krupat E, Kravitz RL. Patient participation in medical consultations: why some patients are more involved than others. Med Care. 2005;43(10):960–969 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Street RL Jr, Richardson MN, Cox V, %Suarez-Almazor ME. (Mis)understanding in patient-health care provider communication about total knee replacement. Arthritis Rheum. 2009;61(1):100–107 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Okunrintemi V, Spatz ES, Di Capua P, et al. Patient-provider communication and health outcomes among individuals with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in the United States: medical expenditure panel survey 2010 to 2013. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2017; 10(4):e003635. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Street RL Jr, Voigt B. Patient participation in deciding breast cancer treatment and subsequent quality of life. Med Decis Making. 1997;17(3):298–306 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Herrin J, Harris KG, Kenward K, Hines S, Joshi MS, Frosch DL. Patient and family engagement: a survey of US hospital practices. BMJ Qual Saf. 2016;25(3): 182–189 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Benjamin JM, Cox ED, Trapskin PJ, et al. Family-initiated dialogue about medications during family-centered rounds. Pediatrics. 2015;135(1):94–101 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Ahmed A, Chu D, Wang S. Current caregiver perspectives and effects of demographics on family-centered rounds. Clin Pediatr (Phila). 2018; 57(6):694–699 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Seltz LB, Zimmer L, Ochoa-Nunez L, Rustici M, Bryant L, Fox D. Latino families’ experiences with family-centered rounds at an academic children’s hospital. Acad Pediatr. 2011;11(5):432–438 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Khan A, Yin HS, Brach C, et al. ; Patient and Family Centered I-PASS Health Literacy Subcommittee . Association between parent comfort with English and adverse events among hospitalized children. JAMA Pediatr. 2020;174(12): e203215. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Stewart AL, Nápoles-Springer AM, %Gregorich SE, Santoyo-Olsson J. Interpersonal processes of care survey: patient-reported measures for diverse groups. Health Serv Res. 2007;42(3 Pt 1): 1235–1256 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Johnson RL, Saha S, Arbelaez JJ, Beach MC, Cooper LA. Racial and ethnic differences in patient perceptions of bias and cultural competence in health care. J Gen Intern Med. 2004;19(2): 101–110 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Zurca AD, Fisher KR, Flor RJ, et al. Communication with limited English-proficient families in the PICU. Hosp Pediatr. 2017;7(1):9–15 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Lion KC, Mangione-Smith R, Martyn M, Hencz P, Fernandez J, Tamura G. Comprehension on family-centered rounds for limited English proficient families. Acad Pediatr. 2013;13(3): 236–242 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Van Cleave AC, Roosen-Runge MU, Miller AB, Milner LC, Karkazis KA, Magnus DC. Quality of communication in interpreted versus noninterpreted PICU family meetings. Crit Care Med. 2014;42(6):1507–1517 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Aronson PL, Yau J, Helfaer MA, %Morrison W. Impact of family presence during pediatric intensive care unit rounds on the family and medical team. Pediatrics. 2009;124(4):1119–1125 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377–381 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Harris PA, Taylor R, Minor BL, et al. ; REDCap Consortium . The REDCap consortium: Building an international community of software platform partners. J Biomed Inform. 2019;95:103208. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Williams GC, Grow VM, Freedman ZR, Ryan RM, Deci EL. Motivational predictors of weight loss and weight-loss maintenance. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1996;70(1):115–126 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Street RL Jr, Mazor KM, Arora NK. Assessing patient-centered communication in cancer care: measures for surveillance of communication outcomes. J Oncol Pract. 2016;12(12): 1198–1202 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Li P, Redden DT. Small sample performance of bias-corrected sandwich estimators for cluster-randomized trials with binary outcomes. Stat Med. 2015;34(2):281–296 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. D’Agostino TA, Atkinson TM, Latella LE, et al. Promoting patient participation in healthcare interactions through communication skills training: a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns. 2017;100(7):1247–1257 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38. Street RL Jr. Physicians’ communication and parents’ evaluations of pediatric consultations. Med Care. 1991;29(11):1146–1152 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39. Siminoff LA, Graham GC, Gordon NH. Cancer communication patterns and the influence of patient characteristics: disparities in information-giving and affective behaviors. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;62(3):355–360 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40. Beach MC, Saha S, Korthuis PT, et al. Patient-provider communication differs for black compared to white HIV- infected patients. AIDS Behav. 2011;15(4):805–811 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41. Glick AF, Goonan M, Kim C, Sandmeyer D, Londoño K, Gold-von Simson G. Factors associated with parental participation in family-centered rounds. Hosp Pediatr. 2021;11(1):61–70 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42. Cox ED, Jacobsohn GC, Rajamanickam VP, et al. A family-centered rounds checklist, family engagement, and patient safety: a randomized trial. Pediatrics. 2017;139(5):e20161688. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43. Landry MA, Lafrenaye S, Roy MC, Cyr C. A randomized, controlled trial of bedside versus conference-room case presentation in a pediatric intensive care unit. Pediatrics. 2007;120(2): 275–280 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44. Rajakumar K, Thomas SB, Musa D, %Almario D, Garza MA. Racial differences in parents’ distrust of medicine and research. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2009;163(2):108–114 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45. Walsh C, Ross LF. Are minority children under- or overrepresented in pediatric research? Pediatrics. 2003;112(4): 890–895 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46. Min‐Sun Kim RSK, Sharkey WF, Park HS, Smith DH, and Cai D. A test of a cultural model of patients’ motivation for verbal communication in patient‐doctor interactions. Commun Monogr. 2000;67(3):262–283 [Google Scholar]
- 47. Schouten BC, Meeuwesen L. Cultural differences in medical communication: a review of the literature. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;64(1-3):21–34 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48. Coelho KR, Galan C. Physician cross- cultural nonverbal communication skills, patient satisfaction and health outcomes in the physician-patient relationship. Int J Family Med. 2012; 2012:376907. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49. Mostow C, Crosson J, Gordon S, et al. Treating and precepting with RESPECT: a relational model addressing race, ethnicity, and culture in medical training. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25(Suppl 2): S146–S154 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50. Beach MC, Sugarman J, Johnson RL, %Arbelaez JJ, Duggan PS, Cooper LA. Do patients treated with dignity report higher satisfaction, adherence, and receipt of preventive care? Ann Fam Med. 2005;3(4):331–338 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51. Dickert NW, Kass NE. Understanding respect: learning from patients. J Med Ethics. 2009;35(7):419–423 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52. Khan A, Spector ND, Baird JD, et al. Patient safety after implementation of a coproduced family centered communication programme: multicenter before and after intervention study. BMJ. 2018;363:k4764. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53. Adames HY, Chavez-Dueñas NY, Fuentes MA, Salas SP, Perez-Chavez JG. Integration of Latino/a cultural values into palliative health care: a culture centered model. Palliat Support Care. 2014;12(2):149–157 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54. Bowleg L. The problem with the phrase women and minorities: intersectionality-an important theoretical framework for public health. Am J Public Health. 2012;102(7):1267–1273 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55. Ford CL, Harawa NT. A new conceptualization of ethnicity for social epidemiologic and health equity research. Soc Sci Med. 2010;71(2):251–258 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56. Parente VM, Khan A, Robles JM. Belonging on rounds: translating research into inclusive practices for families with limited English proficiencyto promote safety, equity, and quality. Hosp Pediatr. 2022;12(5):e171–e173 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57. Velez T, Gati S, Batista CA, Nino de Rivera J, Banker SL. Facilitating engagement on family-centered rounds for families with limited comfort with English. Hosp Pediatr. 2022;12(5):439–447 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58. Taira BR. Improving communication with patients with limited English proficiency. JAMA Intern Med. 2018; 178(5):605–606 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59. Horn IB, Mitchell SJ, Joseph JG, %Wissow LS. African-American parents’ perceptions of partnership with their child’s primary care provider. J Pediatr. 2011;159(2):262–267 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60. Greenwood BN, Hardeman RR, Huang L, Sojourner A. Physician-patient racial concordance and disparities in birthing mortality for newborns. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2020;117(35):21194–21200 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61. Saha S, Komaromy M, Koepsell TD, %Bindman AB. Patient-physician racial concordance and the perceived quality and use of health care. Arch Intern Med. 1999;159(9):997–1004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62. McCambridge J, Witton J, %Elbourne DR. Systematic review of the Hawthorne effect: new concepts are needed to study research participation effects. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(3):267–277 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63. Fernandes AK, Wilson S, Nalin AP, et al. Pediatric family-centered rounds and humanism: a systematic review and qualitative meta-analysis. Hosp Pediatr. 2021;11(6):636–649 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64. Parente V, Parnell L, Childers J, %Spears T, Jarrett V, Ming D. Point-of-care complexity screening algorithm to identify children with medical complexity. Hosp Pediatr. 2021;11(1):44–51 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.