Introduction

In recent years, it has become clear that the

healthcare system in the United States is not

providing the same quality of care for ethnic

minority populations that it does for the majority

white population. Racial and ethnic disparities in

access to and quality of healthcare have been

extensively documented.1 The Institute of

Medicine report “Unequal Treatment” confirmed

that racial and ethnic disparities in healthcare are

not entirely explained by differences in access,

clinical appropriateness, or patient preferences.2

There is also increasing evidence that provider

behaviors and practice patterns contribute to

disparities in care.3

Despite extensive documentation of inequities

in healthcare quality, little is known about

strategies with the potential to improve the

quality of healthcare for ethnic minority

populations. For those interested in quality

improvement, there is a need for an evaluation

and synthesis of the strategies that have been

shown to be effective in bettering the quality of

healthcare for ethnic minorities.

The purpose of this report is to systematically

review the evidence to determine the effectiveness

of interventions designed to improve the quality

of healthcare and/or to reduce disparities for

ethnic minorities. It focuses on evaluations of

interventions aimed at healthcare providers or

organizations, as recent work suggests these

factors contribute substantially to the inequities.

We examined broadly any type of strategy aimed

at improving the quality of care in an ethnic

minority population of patients, and then looked

more specifically at strategies designed to improve

the cultural competence of healthcare providers or

organizations.

Methods

The project consisted of engaging technical

experts, formulating and refining the specific

questions, performing a comprehensive literature

search, reviewing the content and quality of the

literature, constructing the evidence tables,

synthesizing the evidence, and submitting the

report for peer review.

The original questions were refined through

team discussions, input from internal experts, and

review and feedback from the external technical

experts to arrive at the questions addressed in this

report.

1. What strategies targeted at healthcare

providers or organizations have been shown

to improve minority healthcare quality?

a. Which of these strategies have been shown

to be effective in reducing disparities in

health or in healthcare between minority

and white populations?

b. What are the costs of these strategies?

2. What strategies have been shown to improve

the cultural competence of healthcare

providers or organizations?

a. What are the costs of these strategies?

We performed electronic searches of

MEDLINE®, the Cochrane Collaboration’s

CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials,

EMBASE, and the following three specialty

databases: the specialized register of Effective

Practice and Organization of Care Cochrane

Review Group (EPOC), the Research and

Development Resource Base in Continuing

Evidence Report/Technology Assessment

Number 90

Strategies for Improving Minority 

Healthcare Quality

Summary

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES • Public Health Service

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
2

Medical Education (RDRB/CME), and the Cumulative Index

of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL®). No

limits were based on type of healthcare provider or specific

minority group. Hand searching of key journals and reference

lists was also performed. Electronic searching was completed in

February 2003, and hand searching was completed to June 15,

2003.

Pairs of reviewers screened articles for eligibility at the

abstract level and during review of full-text articles. Articles

included in this evidence synthesis were English-language

reports of original data that addressed one of the specific

research questions. Specific exclusion criteria were developed in

consultation with the technical experts. Articles that reported

an evaluation of an intervention targeted at a healthcare

provider or organization were included.

We assessed study quality and abstracted data from each

eligible article. Forms for these tasks, developed in consultation

with experts, were pilot tested. The strength of the evidence

supporting each question was graded in relation to specific

criteria through a consensus process; grades were based on

quality, quantity, and consistency of the body of evidence and

comprised Evidence Grade A for the best or strongest evidence,

to Evidence Grade D for the weakest evidence.

Results

We screened 3,703 articles for eligibility at the abstract

review level. From this screening, 288 articles were identified

for full-text or article review. At this second level, 68 percent of

the articles did not meet eligibility criteria. Therefore, for this

report, data were synthesized from 91 eligible articles. Twentyseven articles addressed the broad research question concerning

interventions to improve healthcare quality; 64 articles

addressed the specific question of strategies to improve cultural

competence. Since the early 1990s there has been a striking

increase in the number of articles addressing these questions; 33

percent of the 91 reviewed articles were published after 2000. 

Question 1: Effectiveness of healthcare quality

improvement strategies for racial/ethnic

minorities

Overview of Reviewed Studies

All studies were randomized controlled trials (n=20) or

concurrent controlled trials (n=7). Most articles were in the area

of prevention (n=19) and most targeted physicians only (n=17).

The primary provider intervention was a tracking/reminder

system in 10 studies, multifaceted interventions in 9, provider

education in 2, bypassing the physician using nurse/nurse

practitioners in 2, use of a structured patient questionnaire in 1,

use of remote simultaneous translation in 1, use of subspecialty

consultation in 1, and use of defibrillators on emergency

medical vehicles in 1. Approximately half (n=14) of the studies

had a patient intervention component, although these studies

varied in whether the patient intervention was provided in

addition to the provider intervention or compared with the

provider intervention. The intervention was targeted to

improve the quality of care specifically for racial/ethnic

minorities in only two studies. The most common outcomes

were related to healthcare process: appropriateness of care

(n=18), quality of providers (n=9), and use of services (n=7).

Quality of Reviewed Studies

Most studies (20 of 27) clearly described healthcare providers

and setting, and most (24 of 27) described the intervention

sufficiently to ensure replication. Although there were 20

randomized controlled trials, the randomization was considered

adequate (in that investigators could not predict assignment) in

only 11 studies. Although there were seven concurrent

controlled trials, there was one study in which the comparison

group was considered inadequate (dissimilar). 

Finally, although all studies used objective methods to

evaluate outcomes, only nine of 27 had masked outcome

assessment, and 13 of 27 performed a pre- and a post

intervention evaluation. Approximately half (15 of 27) reported

the numbers for and reasons for non-inclusion in the study

analysis, and almost all (21 of 27) performed a complete

statistical analysis (including the magnitude of difference

between groups, an index of variability, and a test statistic). 

Results of Reviewed Studies

Twenty-seven articles qualified for review, each of which used

a unique combination of intervention methods in a variety of

settings and patient populations. For the purpose of synthesis,

we have identified the main intervention method. The

categorization of the main intervention method is a

simplification of what was often a complex intervention

strategy. 

Tracking/reminder systems. Ten studies used tracking and/or

reminder systems to improve quality of care; of these studies,

two were in adult general prevention,4,5 six in adult cancer

screening,5-10 one in tobacco cessation,11 and one in end-of-life

care (completion of advance directives).12 All ten studies

demonstrated positive outcomes, primarily in the

appropriateness of care (such as provision of preventive care,

tobacco cessation counseling, or advance directive counseling)

category. Overall, there is excellent evidence supporting the use

of tracking/reminder systems aimed at providers of racial/ethnic

minority patients (Evidence Grade A). 

Multifaceted interventions. Nine studies used an intervention

characterized as multifaceted, meaning that there were two or

more main intervention methods.13-21 Two of these

interventions were in adult cancer screening,13,14 one in

tobacco cessation,15 one in cholesterol reduction,16 three in

mental health,17-19 one in acute upper respiratory tract

infections,20 and one in asthma.21 Outcomes of these studies
are mixed, with most studies showing improvements in one or

two (but not all) outcomes measured. Overall, there is fair

evidence supporting the use of multifaceted interventions

aimed at providers of racial/ethnic minority patients (Evidence

Grade C). 

Bypass the physician. Two studies (both in adult cancer

screening) bypassed the physician and had either a nurse or a

nurse practitioner offer screening directly to patients,22,23 and

both studies demonstrated improvements in the provision of

preventive services to patients. Overall, there is fair evidence

supporting the use of bypassing the providers of racial/ethnic

minority patients to offer standardized services directly to

patients (Evidence Grade C). 

Provider education. Two studies used provider education as

the main intervention strategy, one in the area of adult general

prevention24 and one in prevention of injuries in children.25

Both studies demonstrated improvements in provider

counseling behaviors,24,25 but one measured and did not find

any effect of the intervention on parent knowledge of injury

prevention (the only outcome categorized as efficacy of

treatment) or parent adherence to provider advice.25 Overall,

there is fair evidence supporting the use of provider education

aimed at providers of racial/ethnic minority patients (Evidence

Grade C). 

Use of Safe Times Questionnaire (STQ). One study (in the

area of prevention in children) used a structured questionnaire

to assess adolescent health behaviors and demonstrated a

positive impact on providers’ counseling behaviors.26 Overall,

there is poor evidence supporting the use of structured

questionnaires for racial/ethnic minority patients (Evidence

Grade D). 

Use of Remote Simultaneous Translation (RST). One study

compared the accuracy of translation and quality of patientphysician communication by using remote simultaneous and

proximate consecutive interpretation and found fewer

translation errors and greater patient and physician

satisfaction.27 Overall, there is poor evidence supporting the

use of RST for racial/ethnic minority patients (Evidence Grade

D). 

Use of specialty consult. One study evaluated the use of

nephrology consults for patients with chronic kidney disease

and found no effect on health care process or patient

outcomes.28 Overall, there is poor evidence supporting the use

of specialty consults aimed at providers of racial/ethnic

minority patients (Evidence Grade D). 

Use of defibrillators on emergency medical services. One study

evaluated the use of defibrillators on emergency medical

services and found no effect on patient outcomes.29 Overall,

there is poor evidence supporting the use of defibrillators on

emergency medical services (Evidence Grade D). 

Results for Question 1a: Strategies to Reduce Disparities 

Only one study specifically addressed the question of

whether an intervention could reduce disparities in healthcare

quality between minorities and white persons.18 The study, in

which two different culturally tailored interventions to improve

the quality of depression care were evaluated and compared to a

control group that received no intervention, had mixed results.

There was no differential effect of the interventions on

healthcare process for white versus minority patients; all

patients (African American, Latino, and white) in the

intervention groups were more likely than patients in the

control group to receive appropriate therapy. However, there

was a mixed effect on health outcomes: there were

improvements for African-American and Latino patients in the

rate of depression compared with controls (with no

improvement for white patients), whereas there were no

improvements for African-American and Latino patients in the

intervention groups in employment rates compared with

controls (with improvement for white patients). Overall, there

is poor evidence to determine which interventions might

reduce disparities between racial/ethnic minority patients and

majority patients (Evidence Grade D).

Results for Question 1b: Costs of Quality Improvement

for Racial/Ethnic Minorities

Only one study reported on the costs of an intervention

aimed at improving the quality of healthcare for racial/ethnic

minority persons.28 This study, which provided case

management and nephrology consultation for patients with

chronic renal insufficiency, estimated a minimum yearly cost of

$89,355 in 1998 (or $484 per intervention patient) and it was

unable to demonstrate any health benefits in its participants.

Overall, there is poor evidence to determine the cost of

strategies to improve the quality of care for racial/ethnic

minorities (Evidence Grade D).

Question 2: Effectiveness of cultural

competence training

Overview of Reviewed Studies

Of the 64 articles that qualified for our review, only two

described randomized controlled trials, eight studies were

concurrent controlled trials, and four had an external (nonconcurrent) control group. Most studies were designed without

a comparison group; these had either a postintervention

evaluation only (n=25), a pre- and a postintervention

evaluation (n=20), or a qualitative evaluation (n=5). Most of

the interventions targeted nurses (n=32) or physicians (n=19). 

The content of the curricular interventions varied. Using a

previously developed framework to categorize cultural

competence curricular content,30 we found that most

interventions focused on specific cultural content (n=45),

general concepts of culture (n=43), language (n=15), and

3
patient-provider interaction (n=13). In terms of the specific

ethnic minority groups that were the focus of the interventions,

20 studies mentioned Hispanic persons; 19, African

Americans; 16, Asians/Pacific Islanders; and 5, American

Indians. 

Most interventions used more than one training method,

and no two studies used exactly the same methods. The most

common training methods were group discussion (n=29) and

lectures (n=29). Most studies used more than one method for

evaluation; the most common method was provider selfassessment forms (used in 33 studies). Only four articles

attempted to measure patient outcomes. Most included some

measure of provider outcome; attitude (n=44), knowledge

(n=30), or skills/behaviors (n=22). 

Quality of Reviewed Studies

Notably, less than half (n=27) of the studies had an objective

outcome assessment; only one third (n=21) included enough

detail about the intervention to ensure replication; only 17 of

the interventions were developed with a theoretical model; only

21 studies clearly described the targeted healthcare providers,

setting, and dates of study; only 15 had a complete statistical

analysis; only 14 included the numbers and reasons for noninclusion in the study analysis; only eight had an adequate

comparison group (concurrent and similar); only two had

masking of outcome assessors; and only one had adequate

randomization.

Results of Reviewed Studies

In our results below, we focus on the 34 studies with the

strongest study design (studies that either had a comparison

group and/or did a pre- and postintervention evaluation). We

do not focus on articles that described interventions evaluated

qualitatively or with only a post-test. 

Knowledge. Of the 19 studies that evaluated the effect of

cultural competence training on the knowledge of healthcare

providers, 17 demonstrated a positive effect, one study showed

no effect, and one study demonstrated a partial/mixed effect.

Eleven of these studies tested the provider’s knowledge about

general cultural concepts, seven evaluated culture-specific

knowledge, and one did not provide details to allow

determination of content. There was no obvious pattern

regarding which type of knowledge was enhanced by cultural

competence training. Overall, there is excellent evidence to

suggest that cultural competence training increases the

knowledge of healthcare providers (Evidence Grade A).

Attitudes. Of the 25 studies that evaluated the effect of

cultural competence training on the attitudes of healthcare

providers, 21 demonstrated a positive effect, one showed no

effect, and three showed a partial/mixed effect. The most

common attitude outcome measured was cultural self-efficacy

(measured in three studies), but other types of attitudes were

greater understanding of the impact of sociocultural issues on

the patient-physician relationship, more positive attitudes

toward community health issues, and an increased interest in

learning about patient and family backgrounds. Overall, there

is good evidence to suggest that cultural competence training

favorably affects the attitudes of healthcare providers (Evidence

Grade B).

Skills. Of the 14 studies that evaluated the effect of cultural

competence training on the skills of healthcare providers, all

demonstrated a positive effect. For example, in one study,

participants were given 16 one-hour sessions in which they

practiced communication skills with the community

volunteers. They were subsequently shown to be significantly

more competent in interviewing a non-English-speaking person

as rated by a masked psychologist who viewed videotapes of

interviews. Other types of skills/behaviors improvements were

an increase in nurses’ involvement in community-based cancer

education programs, an increase in self-reported social

interactions with peers of different races/ethnicities, and an

improved ability of participants to conduct a behavioral analysis

and treatment plan. Overall, there is good evidence to suggest

that cultural competence training favorably affects the

skills/behaviors of healthcare providers (Evidence Grade B).

Patient outcomes. Only three articles evaluated patient

outcomes: one targeted physicians,31 one targeted mental

health counselors,32 and one targeted a mixed group of

providers.33 All three reported favorable patient satisfaction

measures,31-33 and one demonstrated improved adherence to

follow-up among patients assigned to the intervention group

providers.32

In terms of the methods used to bring about such

improvements in patient satisfaction and (in one case)

adherence, one study trained four mental health counselors

about the attitudes that low-income, African-American women

bring to counseling (4 hours total),32 another trained nine

physicians to speak Spanish (20 hours total),31 and a third

implemented a state-mandated, 3-day training program focused

on team training, recipient recovery principles, clinical issues,

and cultural competence for all staff who have contact with

recipients of inpatient mental healthcare.33 Overall, there is

good evidence that cultural competence training improves

patient satisfaction (Evidence Grade B) and poor evidence that

it affects patient adherence or health outcomes (Evidence Grade

D). 

Results for Question 2a: Costs of Cultural Competence

Training

Of the 55 articles eligible for review, only five addressed the

costs of cultural competence training.31,34-37 Four of the

five34-37 described the costs of interventions that involved

international travel. In all cases students paid for some portion

of the trip, while the school or program paid $0 to $2,000.

There are limited data on the costs of classroom or other types

of instruction. One study estimated the cost of 20 total hours

of Spanish-language instruction for nine physicians to be

4
$2,000 in 2000, not including the opportunity costs for

physician time (approximately 20 hours total for each

physician).31 In another program, 60 hours of classroom

instruction (20 hours of Spanish-language instruction and 40

hours of cultural competence training focused on Hispanic

populations) provided for 19 students had an estimated local

cost of $3,000 in 1994, of which each student contributed

$80.36 Finally, one program matched involved matching 26

students to 26 local ethnically diverse families, asked the

students to visit the family six times, and paid each family $400

in 1996-2000.35 Overall, there is poor evidence to determine

the costs of cultural competence training (Evidence Grade D).

Discussion

Question 1. Effectiveness of healthcare quality

improvement interventions for racial/ethnic

minorities

There is excellent evidence that provider tracking/reminder

systems are effective in improving the quality of care for

racial/ethnic minority patients (Evidence Grade A), fair

evidence that multifaceted interventions, provider education

interventions, and interventions which bypass the physician to

offer screening services to racial/ethnic minority patients can

improve quality of care (Evidence Grade C), and insufficient

evidence for the use of any of the studied interventions

(Evidence Grade D). Notably, however, two types of

interventions had favorable results (employed in one study

each, thus receiving an evidence grade of D) that may be

worthy of further study: use of remote simultaneous translation

for patients with limited English proficiency and the use of the

Safe Times Questionnaire for health behavior risk assessment in

adolescents.

There is poor evidence to determine which strategies are

most effective in reducing disparities between ethnic minority

and white populations (Evidence Grade D). The only study

specifically designed to do this had mixed results with

improvements in only one of the two outcomes assessed.18

There is poor evidence to determine the costs of strategies to

improve care and reduce disparities for ethnic minority

populations (Evidence Grade D). 

Question 2. Effectiveness of cultural

competence training

There is excellent evidence to suggest that cultural

competence training can increase the knowledge of healthcare

providers (Evidence Grade A), and good evidence that cultural

competence training can improve the attitudes and skills of

healthcare providers (Evidence Grade B). However, the studies

are heterogeneous (no two studies used exactly the same

intervention methods), and it is difficult to conclude which

specific types of training interventions are effective in

improving particular outcomes. Even within an outcome

category, there is no uniformity in outcome measurement, thus

making it difficult to determine which specific types of

knowledge, attitudes, or skills are affected by cultural

competence training.

There is good evidence from three studies to suggest that

cultural competence training can favorably affects patient

satisfaction (Evidence Grade B) and poor evidence that cultural

competence training can affect patient adherence (Evidence

Grade D), although the one study that examined patient

adherence demonstrated a positive impact. There are no studies

that have evaluated patient health outcomes.

There is poor evidence to determine the cost of cultural

competence training (Evidence Grade D). One of the studies

demonstrated an improvement in patient satisfaction also

included information about cost, and so perhaps the best

evidence is found in that study, which estimated a cost of

$2,000 to train nine emergency department physicians in the

Spanish language.31

Limitations of Report and Literature

General Limitations 

This review was limited to reports published in English (after

1980), as our resources did not permit extensive searching of

the non-English-language and “gray” literature. Consequently,

publication bias is possible. However, recent work has suggested

that results of reviews with these limits do not differ

substantially from reviews with no such limits.38 Only studies

that specifically presented data on racial/ethnic minorities were

included.

Limitations of Report and Literature for Question 1

There were limited numbers of studies in each clinical

category (except prevention), and few studies focused on

priority conditions for which there are documented healthcare

disparities (such as HIV/AIDS, cardiovascular disease, diabetes

mellitus, and infant mortality). The majority of interventions

(all but two) were generic improvement interventions targeted

at providers of racial/ethnic minority patients; they did not

necessarily target those aspects of care for which there are

demonstrated disparities between minority and nonminority

populations. 

Some of the targeted processes of care were not evidencebased practices for any patient population (such as oral cavity

exams or breast self-examinations for cancer screening) and

thus would be unlikely to improve the quality of care or reduce

disparities for racial/ethnic minority patients. Most studies

measured health processes, rather than patient outcomes. This

characteristic poses a significant limitation for studies that

targeted processes of care not already linked to patient

outcomes (that is, not evidence-based). 

5
Evaluating the effectiveness of specific interventions was

challenging for several reasons. Each study used slightly

different intervention methods, thereby making generalizations

across studies difficult. The studies used multicomponent

interventions and did not examine separate components. 

Very few studies involved Hispanic populations, and none

included American Indians/Alaska Natives or Asians/Pacific

Islanders. Most studies had no data on costs. 

Only interventions targeting providers/organizations were

included in this review. Although targeting patients directly

may be a promising strategy to improve quality of care and

reduce racial/ethnic disparities, such interventions are not

reflected here. Only randomized controlled trials and

concurrent controlled trials were included; there may be other

worthwhile interventions that have been evaluated with other

study designs.

Eligibility for our review was limited to studies in the United

States, even though there may have been other promising

studies conducted in other countries. Finally, we made no

assessment of the generalizability of the population of providers

targeted in these studies to the broader population of providers

caring for racial/ethnic minorities.

Limitations of Report and Literature for Question 2

There are no standardized instruments for measuring

cultural competence, and very few outcome assessments were

objectively measured. Often there were no data concerning the

psychometric properties of the instruments used for evaluation,

and most studies were designed without a comparison group

for evaluation.

Many articles did not describe the curricular interventions

well enough to ensure replication. Furthermore, each curricular

intervention was different, making generalizability across

studies difficult.

Few studies measured patient outcomes, and none measured

healthcare process quality indicators. Some studies used

curriculum evaluation as the only outcome. Finally, most

studies did not include data on costs.

We made no attempt to assess the psychometric properties of

the instruments used to measure cultural competence. Our

review focused on interventions aimed at the education of

healthcare providers, rather than on an evaluation of all possible

organizational strategies to provide culturally and linguistically

appropriate services. 

Future Research

Research on Improving the Quality of Care and

Reducing Disparities for Racial/Ethnic Minorities

More research designed specifically to reduce demonstrated

racial/ethnic disparities in healthcare quality is needed. It is

necessary to distinguish between interventions aimed at

improving the quality of care for all persons and those aimed

specifically at improving quality of care for racial/ethnic

minorities (such as reducing provider bias). More quality

improvement interventions are needed that focus on priority

conditions for which there are documented health disparities

(e.g., infant mortality, cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus,

and HIV/AIDS). For generic quality improvement

interventions done in mixed populations, there should be

subgroup analyses to gauge the effect of the interventions on

equality of treatment for racial/ethnic minorities.

Several gaps in the current literature need to be filled. More

studies are needed in acute care and specialty settings and also

among Asian/Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native,

and Hispanic populations. More information is needed about

the costs of various strategies to improve healthcare quality and

reduce racial/ethnic disparities. In general, studies ought to

include patient outcomes, have longer follow-up, and link

processes of care to health outcomes. There is a need to

replicate promising intervention strategies in different

healthcare settings and organizations. 

The literature is evolving rapidly, and updated evidence

assessments will be necessary soon. Funding for that research is

needed.

Research on Cultural Competence

Curricular objectives need to be measurable and linked to

outcomes that can be measured objectively. There is a dire need

for standardized, reliable, and valid instruments to measure

aspects of cultural competence. Studies should also measure the

effect of the curricular interventions on healthcare process and

patient outcomes. For the results to be meaningful, studies

need to have a pre- and postintervention evaluation and/or a

comparison group; there is certainly a need for more

randomized controlled trials in this area.

Researchers should comprehensively describe the curricular

interventions, such that they can be replicated in different

settings. Studies also ought to include more comprehensive

information about resources needed and the cost of cultural

competence training. 

Knowledge on this topic is evolving rapidly, and updated

evidence assessments will be needed in the near future.

Availability of the Full Report

The full evidence report from which this summary was taken

was prepared for the Agency for Healthcare Research and

Quality (AHRQ) by the Johns Hopkins University Evidencebased Practice Center, Baltimore, MD, under Contract No.

290-02-0018. The full report is expected to be available in

January 2004. At that time, printed copies may be obtained

free of charge from the AHRQ Publications Clearinghouse by

calling 800-358-9295. Requesters should ask for Evidence

Report/Technology Assessment No. 90, Strategies for Improving

Minority Healthcare Quality. In addition, Internet users will be

6
able to access the report and this summary online through

AHRQ’s Web site at www.ahrq.gov

Suggested Citation

Beach MC, Cooper LA, Robinson KA, Price EG, Gary TL,

Jenckes MW, Gozu A, Smarth C, Palacio A, Feuerstein CJ,

Bass EB, Powe NR. Strategies for Improving Minority Healthcare

Quality. Summary, Evidence Report/Technology Assessment

No. 90. (Prepared by the Johns Hopkins University Evidencebased Practice Center, Baltimore, MD.) AHRQ Publication

No. 04-E008-01. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare

Research and Quality. January 2004.

References

1. Mayberry RM, Mili F, Ofili E. Racial and ethnic differences in access

to medical care. Med Care Res Rev 2000; 57 Suppl 1: 108-45.

2. Smedley BD, Stith AY, Nelson AR. Unequal Treatment: Confronting

racial and ethnic disparities in health care. Committee on

Understanding and Eliminating Racial and Ethnic Disparities in

Health Care. Washington (DC): Institute of Medicine; 2003. 

3. van Ryn M. Research on the provider contribution to race/ethnicity

disparities in medical care. Med Care 2002; 40(1 Suppl): I140-51.

4. McDonald CJ, Hui SL, Smith DM, et al. Reminders to physicians

from an introspective computer medical record. A two-year

randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 1984; 100(1): 130-8.

5. Turner BJ, Day SC, Borenstein B. A controlled trial to improve

delivery of preventive care: physician or patient reminders? J Gen

Intern Med 1989; 4(5): 403-9.

6. Burack RC, Gimotty PA. Promoting screening mammography in

inner-city settings. The sustained effectiveness of computerized

reminders in a randomized controlled trial. Med Care 1997; 35(9):

921-31.

7. Burack RC, Gimotty PA, George J, et al. How reminders given to

patients and physicians affected pap smear use in a health

maintenance organization: results of a randomized controlled trial.

Cancer 1998; 82(12): 2391-400.

8. Burack RC, Gimotty PA, George J, et al. The effect of patient and

physician reminders on use of screening mammography in a health

maintenance organization. Results of a randomized controlled trial.

Cancer 1996; 78(8): 1708-21.

9. Burack RC, Gimotty PA, George J, et al. Promoting screening

mammography in inner-city settings: a randomized controlled trial of

computerized reminders as a component of a program to facilitate

mammography. Med Care 1994; 32(6): 609-24.

10. Burack RC, Gimotty PA, Simon M, et al. The effect of adding Pap

smear information to a mammography reminder system in an HMO:

results of randomized controlled trial. Prev Med 2003; 36(5): 547-54.

11. Ahluwalia LS , Gibson CA, Kenney RE, et al. Smoking status as a

vital sign. J Gen Intern Med 1999; 14: 402-408.

12. Dexter PR, Wolinsky FD, Gramelspacher GP, et al. Effectiveness of

computer-generated reminders for increasing discussions about

advance directives and completion of advance directive forms. A

randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 1998; 128(2): 102-10.

13. Dietrich AJ, O’Connor GT, Keller A, et al. Cancer: improving early

detection and prevention. A community practice randomised trial.

BMJ 1992; 304(6828): 687-91.

14. Manfredi C, Czaja R, Freels S, et al. Prescribe for health. Improving

cancer screening in physician practices serving low-income and

minority populations. Arch Fam Med 1998; 7(4): 329-37.

15. Allen B Jr, Pederson LL, Leonard EH. Effectiveness of physicians-intraining counseling for smoking cessation in African Americans. J Natl

Med Assoc 1998; 90(10): 597-604.

16. Keyserling TC, Ammerman AS, Davis CE, et al. A randomized

controlled trial of a physician-directed treatment program for lowincome patients with high blood cholesterol: the Southeast

Cholesterol Project. Arch Fam Med 1997; 6(2): 135-45.

17. Burge SK, Amodei N, Elkin B, et al. An evaluation of two primary

care interventions for alcohol abuse among Mexican-American

patients. Addiction 1997; 92(12): 1705-16.

18. Miranda J, Duan N, Sherbourne C, et al. Improving care for

Minorities: Can Quality Improvement Interventions Improve Care

and Outcomes for Depressed Minorites? Results of a Randomized,

Controlled Trial. Health Serv Res 2003; 38(2): 613-630.

19. Callahan CM, Hendrie HC, Dittus RS, et al. Improving treatment of

late life depression in primary care: a randomized clinical trial. J Am

Geriatr Soc 1994; 42(8): 839-46.

20. Harris R, Mackenzie T, Leeman-Castillo B, et al. Optimizing

antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratiory tract infections in an urban

urgent care clinic. J Gen Intern Med 2003; 18: 326-334.

21. Evans D, Mellins R, Lobach K, et al. Improving care for minority

children with asthma: professional education in public health clinics.

Pediatrics 1997; 99(2): 157-64.

22. Mandelblatt J, Traxler M, Lakin P, et al. A nurse practitioner

intervention to increase breast and cervical cancer screening for poor,

elderly black women. J Gen Intern Med 1993; 8(4): 173-8.

23. McCarthy BD, Yood MU, Bolton MB, et al. Redesigning primary

care processes to improve the offering of mammography. The use of

clinic protocols by nonphysicians. J Gen Intern Med 1997; 12(6):

357-63.

24. Gemson DH, Ashford AR, Dickey LL, et al. Putting prevention into

practice. Impact of a multifaceted physician education program on

preventive services in the inner city. Arch Intern Med 1995; 155(20):

2210-6.

25. Gielen AC, Wilson ME, McDonald EM, et al. Randomized trial of

enhanced anticipatory guidance for injury prevention. Arch Pediatr

Adolesc Med 2001; 155(1): 42-9.

26. Schubiner H, Tzelepis A, Wright K, et al. The clinical utility of the

Safe Times Questionnaire. J Adolesc Health 1994; 15(5): 374-82.

27. Hornberger JC, Gibson CD Jr, Wood W, et al. Eliminating language

barriers for non-English-speaking patients. Med Care 1996; 34(8):

845-56.

28. Harris LE, Luft FC, Rudy DW, et al. Effects of multidisciplinary case

management in patients with chronic renal insufficiency. Am J Med

1998; 105(6): 464-71.

29. Kellermann AL, Hackman BB, Somes G, et al. Impact of firstresponder defibrillation in an urban emergency medical services

system. JAMA 1993; 270(14): 1708-13.

30. Dolhun EP, Muñoz C, Grumbach K. Cross-cultural Education in

U.S. Medical Schools: Development of an Assessment Tool. Acad Med

2003; 78(6): 615-22.

31. Mazor SS, Hampers LC, Chande VT, et al. Teaching Spanish to

pediatric emergency physicians: Effects on patient satisfaction. Arch

Pediatr Adolesc Med 2002; 156(7): 693-695.

32. Wade P, Berstein B. Culture sensitivity training and counselor’s race:

effects on black female client’s perceptions and attrition. J Couns

Psychol 1991; 38: 9-15.

7
33. Way BB, Stone B, Schwager M, et al. Effectiveness of the New York

State Office of Mental Health Core Curriculum: Direct care staff

training. Psychiatr Rehabil J 2002; 25(4): 398-402.

34. Godkin MA, Savageau JA. The effect of a global multiculturalism

track on cultural competence of preclinical medical students. Fam

Med 2001; 33(3): 178-86.

35. Haq C, Rothenberg D, Gjerde C, et al. New world views: preparing

physicians in training for global health work. Fam Med 2000; 32(8):

566-72.

36. Nora LM, Daugherty SR, Mattis-Peterson A, et al. Improving crosscultural skills of medical students through medical school-community

partnerships. West J Med 1994; 161(2): 144-7.

37. Rolls C, Inglis A, Kristy S. Study abroad programs: creating awareness

of and changing attitudes to nursing, health and ways of living in

other cultures. Contemp Nurse 1997; 6(3-4): 152-6.

38. Egger M, Juni P, Bartlett C, et al. How important are comprehensive

literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic

reviews? Empirical study. Health Technol Assess 2003; 7(1): 1-76.

www.ahrq.gov

AHRQ Pub. No. 04-E008-1

January 2004

ISSN 1530-440X