scholarly journals Disparities in Offered Anxiety Treatments Among Minorities

2022 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. 215013192110658
Author(s):  
Laura J. Samander ◽  
Jeffrey Harman

Purpose The primary purpose of this article was to determine if race and ethnicity played a role in if primary care physicians offered anxiety treatment in office visits by adult patients who were diagnosed with an anxiety disorder(s). Methods This study pooled data from the 2011 to 2018 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) that included adult patients with an anxiety disorder and the type of treatment offered to them. Logistic regressions were performed to examine the odds of offered anxiety treatment in office visits by non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, and other race/ethnicity patients compared to office visits by non-Hispanic White patients. Results Physicians offered anxiety treatment in more than half of office visits where the patient was diagnosed with an anxiety disorder. Providers offered counseling or talk therapy in less than 13% of all office visits. Office visits by non-Hispanic Black patients had half the odds of being offered counseling/talk therapy ( P = .068) compared to those by non-Hispanic White patients. Conclusions These findings suggest that statistically significant differences in the offering of any anxiety treatments in office visits to minorities compared to non-Hispanic White patients do not exist; however, there are still differences in the rates of counseling/talk therapy offered in office visits by minorities versus non-minorities. Future studies may want to examine reasons for lower rates of counseling/talk therapy offered to minority and majority patients and the specific pharmacological or therapeutic treatments offered to different races.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Tolchin ◽  
Carol Oladele ◽  
Deron Galusha ◽  
Nitu Kashyap ◽  
Mary Showstark ◽  
...  

AbstractBackgroundSequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score predicts probability of in-hospital mortality. Many crisis standards of care use SOFA score to allocate medical resources during the COVID-19 pandemic.Research QuestionAre SOFA scores disproportionately elevated among Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients hospitalized with COVID-19, compared to Non-Hispanic White patients?Study Design and MethodsRetrospective cohort study conducted in Yale New Haven Health System, including 5 hospitals with total of 2681 beds. Study population drawn from consecutive patients aged ≥18 admitted with COVID-19 from March 29th to August 1st, 2020. Patients excluded from the analysis if not their first admission with COVID-19, if they did not have SOFA score recorded within 24 hours of admission, if race and ethnicity data were not Non-Hispanic Black, Non-Hispanic White, or Hispanic, or if they had other missing data. The primary outcomes was SOFA score, with peak score within 24 hours of admission dichotomized as <6 or ≥6.ResultsOf 2982 patients admitted with COVID-19, 2320 met inclusion criteria and were analyzed, of whom 1058 (45.6%) were Non-Hispanic White, 645 (27.8%) were Hispanic, and 617 (26.6%) were Non-Hispanic Black. Median age was 65.0 and 1226 (52.8%) were female. In univariate logistic screen and in full multivariate model, Non-Hispanic Black patients but not Hispanic patients had greater odds of an elevated SOFA score ≥6 when compared to Non-Hispanic White patients (OR 1.49, 95%CI 1.11-1.99).InterpretationCrisis standards of care utilizing the SOFA score to allocate medical resources would be more likely to deny these resources to Non-Hispanic Black patients.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (9) ◽  
pp. e0257608
Author(s):  
Benjamin Tolchin ◽  
Carol Oladele ◽  
Deron Galusha ◽  
Nitu Kashyap ◽  
Mary Showstark ◽  
...  

Background Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score predicts probability of in-hospital mortality. Many crisis standards of care suggest the use of SOFA scores to allocate medical resources during the COVID-19 pandemic. Research question Are SOFA scores elevated among Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients hospitalized with COVID-19, compared to Non-Hispanic White patients? Study design and methods Retrospective cohort study conducted in Yale New Haven Health System, including 5 hospitals with total of 2681 beds. Study population drawn from consecutive patients aged ≥18 admitted with COVID-19 from March 29th to August 1st, 2020. Patients excluded from the analysis if not their first admission with COVID-19, if they did not have SOFA score recorded within 24 hours of admission, if race and ethnicity data were not Non-Hispanic Black, Non-Hispanic White, or Hispanic, or if they had other missing data. The primary outcome was SOFA score, with peak score within 24 hours of admission dichotomized as <6 or ≥6. Results Of 2982 patients admitted with COVID-19, 2320 met inclusion criteria and were analyzed, of whom 1058 (45.6%) were Non-Hispanic White, 645 (27.8%) were Hispanic, and 617 (26.6%) were Non-Hispanic Black. Median age was 65.0 and 1226 (52.8%) were female. In univariate logistic screen and in full multivariate model, Non-Hispanic Black patients but not Hispanic patients had greater odds of an elevated SOFA score ≥6 when compared to Non-Hispanic White patients (OR 1.49, 95%CI 1.11–1.99). Interpretation Given current unequal patterns in social determinants of health, US crisis standards of care utilizing the SOFA score to allocate medical resources would be more likely to deny these resources to Non-Hispanic Black patients.


Author(s):  
Sadia Ilyas ◽  
Stanislav Henkin ◽  
Pablo Martinez‐Camblor ◽  
Bjoern D. Suckow ◽  
Jocelyn M. Beach ◽  
...  

Background Patients hospitalized with COVID‐19 have an increased risk of thromboembolic events. Whether sex, race or ethnicity impacts these events is unknown. We studied the association between sex, race, and ethnicity and venous and arterial thromboembolic events among adults hospitalized with COVID‐19. Methods and Results We used the American Heart Association Cardiovascular Disease COVID‐19 registry. Primary exposures were sex and race and ethnicity, as defined by the registry. Primary outcomes were venous thromboembolic events and arterial thromboembolic events. We used logistic regression for risk adjustment. We studied 21 528 adults hospitalized with COVID‐19 across 107 centers (54.1% men; 38.1% non‐Hispanic White, 25.4% Hispanic, 25.7% non‐Hispanic Black, 0.5% Native American, 4.0% Asian, 0.4% Pacific Islander, and 5.9% other race and ethnicity). The rate of venous thromboembolic events was 3.7% and was more common in men (4.2%) than women (3.2%; P <0.001), and in non‐Hispanic Black patients (4.9%) than other races and ethnicities (range, 1.3%–3.8%; P <0.001). The rate of arterial thromboembolic events was 3.9% and was more common in men (4.3%) than women (3.5%; P =0.002), and in non‐Hispanic Black patients (5.0%) than other races and ethnicities (range, 2.3%–4.7%; P <0.001). Compared with men, women were less likely to experience venous thromboembolic events (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.71; 95% CI, 0.61–0.83) and arterial thromboembolic events (adjusted OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.66–0.89). Compared with non‐Hispanic White patients, non‐Hispanic Black patients had the highest likelihood of venous thromboembolic events (adjusted OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.04–1.54) and arterial thromboembolic events (adjusted OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.11–1.65). Conclusions Men and non‐Hispanic Black adults hospitalized with COVID‐19 are more likely to have venous and arterial thromboembolic events. These subgroups may represent at‐risk patients more susceptible to thromboembolic COVID‐19 complications.


Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 211-211
Author(s):  
Sumit Gupta ◽  
David T. Teachey ◽  
Meenakshi Devidas ◽  
Yunfeng Dai ◽  
Richard Aplenc ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction: Health disparities are major issue for racial, ethnic, and socioeconomically disadvantaged groups. Though outcomes in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) have steadily improved, identifying persistent disparities is critical. Prior studies evaluating ALL outcomes by race or ethnicity have noted narrowing disparities or that residual disparities are secondary to differences in leukemia biology or socioeconomic status (SES). We aimed to identify persistent inequities by race/ethnicity and SES in childhood ALL in the largest cohort ever assembled for this purpose. Methods: We identified a cohort of newly-diagnosed patients with ALL, age 0-30.99 years who were enrolled on COG trials between 2004-2019. Race/ethnicity was categorized as non-Hispanic white vs. Hispanic vs. non-Hispanic Black vs. non-Hispanic Asian vs. Non-Hispanic other. SES was proxied by insurance status: United States (US) Medicaid (public health insurance for low-income individuals) vs. US other (predominantly private insurance) vs. non-US patients (mainly jurisdictions with universal health insurance). Event-free and overall survival (EFS, OS) were compared across race/ethnicity and SES. The relative contribution of disease prognosticators (age, sex, white blood cell count, lineage, central nervous system status, cytogenetics, end Induction minimal residual disease) was examined with Cox proportional hazard multivariable models of different combinations of the three constructs of interest (race/ethnicity, SES, disease prognosticators) and examining hazard ratio (HR) attenuation between models. Results: The study cohort included 24,979 children, adolescents, and young adults with ALL. Non-Hispanic White patients were 13,872 (65.6%) of the cohort, followed by 4,354 (20.6%) Hispanic patients and 1,517 (7.2%) non-Hispanic Black patients. Those insured with US Medicaid were 6,944 (27.8%). Five-year EFS (Table 1) was 87.4%±0.3% among non-Hispanic White patients vs. 82.8%±0.6% [HR 1.37, 95 th confidence interval (95CI) 1.26-1.49; p&lt;0.0001] among Hispanic patients and 81.9%±1.2% (HR 1.45, 95CI 1.28-1.56; p&lt;0.0001) among non-Hispanic Black patients. Outcomes for non-Hispanic Asian patients were similar to those of non-Hispanic White patients. US patients on Medicaid had inferior 5-year EFS as compared to other US patients (83.2%±0.5% vs. 86.3%±0.3%, HR 1.21, 95CI 1.12-1.30; p&lt;0.0001) while non-US patients had the best outcomes (5-year EFS 89.0%±0.7%, HR 0.78, 95CI 0.71-0.88; p&lt;0.0001). There was substantial imbalance in traditional disease prognosticators (e.g. T-cell lineage) across both race/ethnicity and SES, and of race/ethnicity by SES. For example, T-lineage ALL accounted for 17.6%, 9.4%, and 6.6% of Non-Hispanic Black, Non-Hispanic White, and Hispanic patients respectively (p&lt;0.0001). Table 2 shows the multivariable models and illustrates different patterns of HR adjustment among specific racial/ethnic and SES groups. Inferior EFS among Hispanic patients was substantially attenuated by the addition of disease prognosticators (HR decreased from 1.37 to 1.17) and further (but not fully) attenuated by the subsequent addition of SES (HR 1.11). In contrast, the increased risk among non-Hispanic Black children was minimally attenuated by both the addition of disease prognosticators and subsequent addition of SES (HR 1.45 to 1.38 to 1.32). Similarly, while the superior EFS of non-US insured patients was substantially attenuated by the addition of race/ethnicity and disease prognosticators (HR 0.79 to 0.94), increased risk among US Medicaid patients was minimally attenuated by the addition of race/ethnicity or disease prognosticators (HR 1.21 to 1.16). OS disparities followed similar patterns but were consistently worse than in EFS, particularly among patients grouped as non-Hispanic other. Conclusions: Substantial disparities in survival outcomes persist by race/ethnicity and SES in the modern era. Our findings suggest that reasons for these disparities vary between specific disadvantaged groups. Additional work is required to identify specific drivers of survival disparities that may be mitigated by targeted interventions. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Gupta: Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Teachey: NeoImmune Tech: Research Funding; Sobi: Consultancy; BEAM Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy. Zweidler-McKay: ImmunoGen: Current Employment. Loh: MediSix therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.


Cancers ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (10) ◽  
pp. 2990
Author(s):  
Suleyman Yasin Goksu ◽  
Muhammet Ozer ◽  
Muhammad S. Beg ◽  
Nina Niu Sanford ◽  
Chul Ahn ◽  
...  

Background: We studied the effect of race and ethnicity on disease characteristics and survival in gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors. Methods: The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database was used to select patients with non-pancreatic gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors diagnosed between 2004 and 2015. Trends in survival were evaluated among three groups: Hispanic, non-Hispanic White, and non-Hispanic Black. Kaplan–Meier and Cox regression methods were performed to calculate overall survival and cause-specific survival after adjusting for patient and tumor characteristics. Results: A total of 26,399 patients were included in the study: 65.1% were non-Hispanic White, 19.9% were non-Hispanic Black, and 15% were Hispanic. Non-Hispanic White patients were more likely to be male (50.0%, p < 0.001), older than 60 years (48.0%, p < 0.001), and present with metastatic disease (17.7%, p < 0.001). Non-Hispanic White patients had small intestine neuroendocrine tumors, while Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black patients had rectum neuroendocrine tumors as the most common primary site. Hispanic patients had better overall survival, while non-Hispanic Black patients had better cause-specific survival versus non-Hispanic White patients. This finding was confirmed on multivariable analysis where Hispanic patients had improved overall survival compared to non-Hispanic White patients (Hazard ratio (HR): 0.89 (0.81–0.97)), whereas non-Hispanic Black patients had better cause-specific survival compared to non-Hispanic White patients (HR: 0.89 (0.80–0.98)). Conclusions: Race/ethnicity is an independent prognostic factor in patients with gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors.


2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 10551-10551
Author(s):  
Mahir Khan ◽  
Margaret Wright ◽  
Karriem Watson ◽  
Shikha Jain

10551 Background: The Coronavirus-19 (COVID-19) pandemic has disrupted cancer screening for reasons including healthcare resource preservation, infection control efforts, and patient factors. There is limited literature quantifying this interruption of care, particularly in vulnerable and racial/ethnic minorities. Methods: We compared the volume of cancer screening at the University of Illinois Hospital & Health Sciences System before and during the COVID-19 pandemic using data obtained from the electronic medical record. Modalities included mammogram, ultrasound, and MRI for breast; Pap test for cervical; colonoscopy, CT colonography, and flexible sigmoidoscopy for colorectal; low-dose CT for lung; and prostate-specific antigen test for prostate. Of note, screening and diagnostic tests could not be distinguished for colorectal cancer. We examined percent changes in cancer screening counts for each month from February 2020-August 2020, using January 2020 as a reference. Results were stratified by gender, race, and ethnicity. Results: Screening volume declined rapidly after January 2020, with the nadir for each cancer site occurring in April 2020: breast ( n = 0, -100%), cervical ( n = 169, -84%), colorectal ( n = 35, -89%), lung ( n = 0, -100%), and prostate ( n = 108, -72%). Values recovered by August 2020 for most cancer sites except cervical cancer, which remained decreased (-23%). There were no differences in screening trends by gender. With respect to race, breast screening volume in Black patients decreased earlier and exhibited slower recovery compared to White patients. White patients had poorer cervical screening recovery than Black patients by August 2020 (-60% vs. -23%). Hispanics had poorer recovery of breast screening compared to non-Hispanics by August 2020 (-23% vs. 6%). Conclusions: We observed widely decreased cancer screening attributable to COVID-19. Breast cancer screening data specifically showed persistent disparities affecting Black and Hispanic patients. Despite the reassuring recovery of multiple screening methods by August 2020, an increase above baseline is needed to compensate for initial declines. Further studies will likely reveal long-term consequences of this unprecedented situation.[Table: see text]


2007 ◽  
Vol 106 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-25 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurent G. Glance ◽  
Richard . Wissler ◽  
Christopher Glantz ◽  
Turner M. Osler ◽  
Dana B. Mukamel ◽  
...  

Background There is strong evidence that pain is undertreated in black and Hispanic patients. The association between race and ethnicity and the use of epidural analgesia for labor is not well described. Methods Using the New York State Perinatal Database, the authors examined whether race and ethnicity were associated with the likelihood of receiving epidural analgesia for labor after adjusting for clinical characteristics, demographics, insurance coverage, and provider effect. This retrospective cohort study was based on 81,883 women admitted for childbirth between 1998 and 2003. Results Overall, 38.3% of the patients received epidural analgesia for labor. After adjusting for clinical risk factors, socioeconomic status, and provider fixed effects, Hispanic and black patients were less likely than non-Hispanic white patients to receive epidural analgesia: The adjusted odds ratio was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.78-0.93) for white/Hispanic and 0.78 (0.74-0.83) for blacks compared with non-Hispanic whites. Compared with patients with private insurance, patients without insurance were least likely to receive epidural analgesia (adjusted odds ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.64-0.89). Black patients with private insurance had similar rates of epidural use to white/non-Hispanic patients without insurance coverage: The adjusted odds ratio was 0.66 (95% CI, 0.53-0.82) for white/non-Hispanic patients without insurance versus 0.69 (0.57-0.85) for black patients with private insurance. Conclusion Black and Hispanic women in labor are less likely than non-Hispanic white women to receive epidural analgesia. These differences remain after accounting for differences in insurance coverage, provider practice, and clinical characteristics.


2020 ◽  
pp. rapm-2020-101818
Author(s):  
Alexander Beletsky ◽  
Brittany Nicole Burton ◽  
John J Finneran IV ◽  
Brenton S Alexander ◽  
Alvaro Macias ◽  
...  

BackgroundRegional anesthetic techniques have become increasingly used for the purpose of pain management following mastectomy. Although a variety of beneficial techniques have been described, the delivery of regional anesthesia following mastectomy has yet to be examined for racial or ethnic disparities. We aimed to examine the association of race and ethnicity on the delivery of regional anesthesia in patients undergoing surgical mastectomy using a large national database.MethodsWe used the American College of Surgeons–National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database to identify adult patients aged ≥18 years old who underwent mastectomy from 2014 to 2016. We reported unadjusted estimates of regional anesthesia accordingly to race and ethnicity and examined differences in sociodemographic characteristics and health status. Multivariable logistic regression was used to report the association of race and ethnicity with use of regional anesthesia.ResultsA total of 81 345 patients who underwent mastectomy were included, 14 887 (18.3%) of whom underwent regional anesthesia. The unadjusted rate of use of regional anesthesia was 18.9% for white patients, 16.8% for black patients, 15.6% for Asian patients, 16.5% for Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander patients, 17.8% for American Indian or Alaska Native and 17.4% for unknown race (p<0.001). With respect to ethnicity, the unadjusted rate of regional anesthesia use was 18.4% for non-Hispanic patients vs 16.1% for Hispanic patients vs 18.6% for the unknown ethnicity cohort (p<0.001). On multivariable logistic regression analysis, the odds of receipt of regional anesthesia was 12% lower in black patients and 21% lower in Asian patients compared with white patients (p<0.001). The odds of regional anesthesia use were 13% lower in Hispanic compared with non-Hispanic patients (p<0.001).ConclusionBlack and Asian patients had lower odds of undergoing regional anesthesia following mastectomy compared with white counterparts. In addition, Hispanic patients had lower odds of undergoing regional anesthesia than non-Hispanic counterparts. These differences underlie the importance of working to deliver equitable healthcare irrespective of race or ethnicity.


2021 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 677-685 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elaine Ku ◽  
Charles E. McCulloch ◽  
Deborah B. Adey ◽  
Libo Li ◽  
Kirsten L. Johansen

BackgroundPatients may accrue wait time for kidney transplantation when their eGFR is ≤20 ml/min. However, Black patients have faster progression of their kidney disease compared with White patients, which may lead to disparities in accruable time on the kidney transplant waitlist before dialysis initiation.MethodsWe compared differences in accruable wait time and transplant preparation by CKD-EPI estimating equations in Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort participants, on the basis of estimates of kidney function by creatinine (eGFRcr), cystatin C (eGFRcys), or both (eGFRcr-cys). We used Weibull accelerated failure time models to determine the association between race (non-Hispanic Black or non-Hispanic White) and time to ESKD from an eGFR of ≤20 ml/min per 1.73 m2. We then estimated how much higher the eGFR threshold for waitlisting would be required to achieve equity in accruable preemptive wait time for the two groups.ResultsBy eGFRcr, 444 CRIC participants were eligible for waitlist registration, but the potential time between eGFR ≤20 ml/min per 1.73 m2 and ESKD was 32% shorter for Blacks versus Whites. By eGFRcys, 435 participants were eligible, and Blacks had 35% shorter potential wait time compared with Whites. By the eGFRcr-cys equation, 461 participants were eligible, and Blacks had a 31% shorter potential wait time than Whites. We estimated that registering Blacks on the waitlist as early as an eGFR of 24–25 ml/min per 1.73 m2 might improve racial equity in accruable wait time before ESKD onset.ConclusionsPolicies allowing for waitlist registration at higher GFR levels for Black patients compared with White patients could theoretically attenuate disparities in accruable wait time and improve racial equity in transplant access.


2021 ◽  
pp. 120347542110528
Author(s):  
Megan Lam ◽  
Jie Wei Zhu ◽  
Angie Hu ◽  
Jennifer Beecker

Background Factors influencing the difference in the diagnosis and treatment of melanoma in racial minority groups are well-described in the literature and include atypical presentations and socioeconomic factors that impede access to care. Objective To characterize the differences in melanoma survival outcomes between non-Hispanic white patients and ethnic minority patients in North America. Methods We conducted searches of Embase via Ovid and MEDLINE via Ovid of studies published from 1989 to August 5, 2020. We included observational studies in North America which reported crude or effect estimate data on patient survival with cutaneous melanoma stratified by race. Results Forty-four studies met our inclusion criteria and were included in this systematic review. Pooled analysis revealed that black patients were at a significantly increased risk for overall mortality (HR 1.42, 95% CI, 1.25-1.60), as well as for melanoma-specific mortality (HR 1.27, 95% CI, 1.03-1.56). Pooled analyses using a representative study for each database yielded similar trends. Other ethnic minorities were also more likely report lower melanoma-specific survival compared to non-Hispanic white patients. Conclusion Our results support findings that melanoma patients of ethnic minorities, particularly black patients, experience worse health outcomes with regards to mortality. Overall survival and melanoma-specific survival are significantly decreased in black patients compared to non-Hispanic white patients. With the advent of more effective, contemporary treatments such as immunotherapy, our review identifies a gap in the literature investigating present-day or prospective data on melanoma outcomes, in order to characterize how current racial differences compare to findings from previous decades.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document