The Influence of Patient Race and Socioeconomic Status and Resident Physician Gender and Specialty on Preventive Screening.

OBJECTIVE: Health care disparities remain largely unexplained and need to be better understood to be addressed. Little is known about whether resident physicians screen patients differently based on race or socioeconomic status (SES). The objective of this study was to assess whether residents' preventive screening practices are influenced by patient race or SES or by resident gender, specialty, minority status, or years of training. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. METHODS: Residents from 6 specialties at a large academic medical center participated in an online survey to gauge their knowledge, attitudes, and practices pertaining to primary care screening. The survey consisted of 1 of 4 clinical vignettes that varied by patient race and SES (African-American or Caucasian; high income or low income), followed by questions pertaining to 9 routine screening areas. Resident demographics and patient race and SES were compiled, and bivariate and multivariate analyses were used to assess associations between patient and/or resident characteristics and residents' reported importance of screening as well as intention to screen the vignette patient for the 9 specified health risks. RESULTS: Of 309 residents sent the online survey, 167 responded (response rate, 54%). Four of the 9 screening areas (sexual behavior, physical activity, depression, diet) were reported by residents as both "very important" (versus "not very important") and "would definitely ask about during an office visit" (versus "would not definitely ask about"). In the adjusted odds models, residents showed no racial preference in intention to screen for depression, diet, physical activity, or sexual behavior. Residents were less likely to report that they would screen the high-income patient for sexual behavior compared with the low-income patient (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.46 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.21-0.99]). Female residents were more likely than male residents to report that they would screen for sexual behavior (adjusted OR, 3.79 [95% CI, 1.69-8.52]). Emergency medicine residents were less likely to screen for sexual behavior (adjusted OR, 0.36 [95% CI, 0.14-0.95]) and for physical activity (adjusted OR, 0.27 [95% CI, 0.10-0.73]) than residents from all other specialties. CONCLUSION: Intention to screen for high-risk sexual behavior varied significantly by patient SES and by resident gender and specialty. Future research should examine how preventive screening is addressed in the curriculum of each residency program to ensure that patients will receive appropriate and consistent screening when evaluated by resident physicians.