English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Despite growing awareness of the burden of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in women over the past 2 decades, reports of disparities in the delivery of health care for these diseases have persisted over time.1 Under-treatment of women as compared with men has been described for primary prevention, stable coronary artery disease (CAD) and suspected or diagnosed acute coronary syndromes in both observational studies and controlled experiments.2–6 However, because men and women are nonidentical in many ways that might be relevant for treatment decisions, a critical question for policy makers and clinicians is whether these gender-based variations in treatment correspond to lower quality care. A demonstration of clinical inequity (unequal treatment despite equal clinical need) rather than strict inequality (unequal treatment regardless of need or condition) has been proposed as a framework to identify inappropriate variations in healthcare utilization.7 Following this model, it is important to consider whether observed gender differences correspond to inequities or may reflect appropriate variations explained by differences in treatment indications and contraindications or patient preferences.7In a well-known study published over a decade ago, investigators devised a clever experiment to address just this question of identifying inappropriate healthcare variations.8 Using actors posing as patients with chest pain, primary care physicians were less likely to refer women for cardiac catheterization than men. Because these patients were carefully designed to be identical in age, cardiac risk factors, and symptoms, followed a script standardizing patient communication, and only differed by gender (and race), it seemed obvious that biased decision-making must account for treatment differences.In this commentary, we illustrate why analyses that attempt to control for all known cardiac risk factors that affect treatment decisions might still yield misleading findings about the presence, magnitude, and causes of gender disparities. This residual bias occurs …

All Else Being Equal, Men and Women Are Still Not the Same