Abstract

Defined as a prejudice either for or against something, biases at the provider, patient, and societal level all contribute to differences in cardiovascular disease recognition and treatment, resulting in outcome disparities between sexes and genders. Provider bias in the under-recognition of female-predominant cardiovascular disease and risks might result in underscreened and undertreated patients. Furthermore, therapies for female-predominant phenotypes including nonobstructive coronary artery disease and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction are less well researched, contributing to undertreated female patients. Conversely, women are less likely toseek urgent medical attention, potentially related to societal bias to put others first, which contributes to diagnostic delays. Furthermore, women are less likely to have discussions around risk factors for coronary artery disease compared with men, partially because they are less likely to consider themselves at risk for heart disease. Provider bias in interpreting a greater number of presenting symptoms, some of which have been labelled as "atypical," can lead to mislabelling presentations as noncardiovascular. Furthermore, providers might avoid discussions around certain therapies including thrombolysis for stroke, and cardiac resynchronization therapy in heart failure, because it is incorrectly assumed that women are not interested in pursuing options deemed more invasive. To mitigate bias, organizations should aim to increase the visibility and involvement of women in research, health promotion, and clinical and leadership endeavours. More research needs to be done to identify effective interventions to mitigate sex and gender bias and the resultant cardiovascular outcome discrepancies.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call