Self-Reported Experience of Racial Discrimination and Health Care Use in New Zealand: Results From the 2006/07 New Zealand Health Survey

Objectives. We investigated whether reported experience of racial discrimination in health care and in other domains was associated with cancer screening and negative health care experiences.Methods. We used 2006/07 New Zealand Health Survey data (n = 12 488 adults). We used logistic regression to examine the relationship of reported experience of racial discrimination in health care (unfair treatment by a health professional) and in other domains (personal attack, unfair treatment in work and when gaining housing) to breast and cervical cancer screening and negative patient experiences adjusted for other variables.Results. Racial discrimination by a health professional was associated with lower odds of breast (odds ratio [OR] = 0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.14, 0.996) and cervical cancer (OR = 0.51; 95% CI = 0.30, 0.87) screening among Maori women. Racial discrimination by a health professional (OR = 1.57; 95% CI = 1.15, 2.14) and racial discrimination more widely (OR = 1.55; 95% CI = 1.35, 1.79) were associated with negative patient experiences for all participants.Conclusions. Experience of racial discrimination in both health care and other settings may influence health care use and experiences of care and is a potential pathway to poor health.Racism is increasingly recognized as an important determinant of health and driver of ethnic health inequalities.1 Regardless of its health effects, racism breaches fundamental human rights and is morally wrong. It is important to understand how racism operates as a health risk to develop interventions that reduce ethnic inequalities in health within a context of eliminating racism.2Racism is an organized system that categorizes racial/ethnic groups and structures opportunity, leading to inequities in societal goods and resources and a racialized social order.3–5 Racism operates via institutional and individual practices (racial discrimination) and varies in form and type.6,7 The pathways whereby racism leads to poor health are also multiple, with direct and indirect mechanisms such as race-based assaults and violence, physiological and psychological stress mechanisms, differential exposures to health risk factors, differential access to and experiences of health care, and differential access to goods, resources, and power in society.6,8–10Research on racism and health, particularly self-reported racism, has increased. Self-reported experience of racism has been linked to multiple health measures (including mental and physical health outcomes and health risk factors) across a variety of countries and for different ethnic groups.10–12 Research on how self-reported experience of racism may negatively affect health has largely focused on racism as a stressor with mental and physical health consequences.10,13 Comparatively less evidence is available on how experience of racism may influence health service use,10 although this is another potentially important pathway to poor health.14,15Studies on the association between self-reported racism and health care experience and use have included racism experienced within the health care system, outside of the health care system, or both.16–19 Health care measures have included use of specific services such as cancer screening19–24 and receipt of optimal care,20,25 measures of unmet need,16,26 measures of adherence to care,17,27,28 and measures of satisfaction and experiences with care.18,29–31Various mechanisms have been suggested to explain how the experience of racism may negatively affect health care use, experiences of health care, and subsequent poor health. Experiences of racism within the health care system may influence health by shaping decision making of both providers and patients and influencing future health behaviors, including future health care use behaviors and potential disengagement from the health care system.14,18,26 Experiences of racism in wider society also may lead to general mistrust and avoidance of dominant culture institutions, including health care systems.15,30 This is supported by evidence that both experiences of racism and general discrimination within and outside of health care have been associated with negative health care use measures.15,16,19,22New Zealand has a population of approximately 4.4 million people, with the major ethnic groupings being Maori (indigenous peoples, 15% of the population), European (77%), Pacific (7%), and Asian (10%).32 Ethnic inequalities in health and socioeconomic status persist, with racism a potentially important contributor to these inequalities.33 Previous research in New Zealand has shown reported experience of racial discrimination by a health professional to be higher among non-European ethnic groups with experiences of racial discrimination in different settings associated with multiple health outcomes and risk factors.34In this study, we focused on the relationship between racial discrimination and health service use and experience, an area not previously examined in New Zealand. We provide important information on how racial discrimination may affect health care use as a possible pathway to poor health outcomes and ethnic health inequalities in New Zealand. In addition, our study contributes to the limited evidence on racial discrimination and health care internationally.Primary health care in New Zealand is available to all residents and is usually provided at general practices. Costs of visits are universally subsidized by government to enable lower patient copayments with additional limited provision for extra funding based on high need.35 Currently, 2 publicly funded national cancer screening programs are available.36 Breast cancer screening is free to all eligible women through BreastScreen Aotearoa. Cervical cancer screening usually incurs a fee and is available through patients’ usual primary care provider or specific cervical cancer screening providers.We specifically examined the association between self-reported experience of racial discrimination and the use of health care in 2 domains—cancer screening and negative patient perceptions of health care encounters. We hypothesized that experience of racial discrimination both within and outside the health care system may negatively affect how individuals use and experience health care.     

Racial/Ethnic and Socioeconomic Differences in Short-Term Breast Cancer Survival Among Women in an Integrated Health System

Objectives. We examined the combined influence of race/ethnicity and neighborhood socioeconomic status (SES) on short-term survival among women with uniform access to health care and treatment.Methods. Using electronic medical records data from Kaiser Permanente Northern California linked to data from the California Cancer Registry, we included 6262 women newly diagnosed with invasive breast cancer. We analyzed survival using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression with follow-up through 2010.Results. After consideration of tumor stage, subtype, comorbidity, and type of treatment received, non-Hispanic White women living in low-SES neighborhoods (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.28; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.07, 1.52) and African Americans regardless of neighborhood SES (high SES: HR = 1.44; 95% CI = 1.01, 2.07; low SES: HR = 1.88; 95% CI = 1.42, 2.50) had worse overall survival than did non-Hispanic White women living in high-SES neighborhoods. Results were similar for breast cancer–specific survival, except that African Americans and non-Hispanic Whites living in high-SES neighborhoods had similar survival.Conclusions. Strategies to address the underlying factors that may influence treatment intensity and adherence, such as comorbidities and logistical barriers, should be targeted at low-SES non-Hispanic White and all African American patients.Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women in the United States, and it is the second leading cause of cancer death.1 Despite significant improvements in breast cancer survival from 1992 to 2009,1,2 racial/ethnic and socioeconomic survival disparities have persisted.3,4 African American women have consistently been found to have worse survival after breast cancer,3,5–11 Hispanic women have worse or similar survival,3,9,11,12 and Asian women as an aggregated group have better or similar survival3,9,11,12 than do non-Hispanic White women. Underlying factors thought to contribute to these racial/ethnic disparities include differences in stage at diagnosis,8,12,13 distributions of breast cancer subtypes,14–16 comorbidities,12,13,17 access to and utilization of quality care,13,18 and treatment.12,13Numerous studies also have found poorer survival after breast cancer diagnosis among women residing in neighborhoods of lower socioeconomic status (SES).6,9,19,20 Research has shown that inadequate use of cancer screening services, and consequent late stage diagnosis and decreased survival, contribute to the SES disparities.21,22 Similar to racial/ethnic disparities, SES disparities have been attributed to inadequate treatment and follow-up care and comorbidities.18 Previous population-based studies have continued to observe racial/ethnic survival disparities after adjusting for neighborhood SES, but these studies have not considered the combined influence of neighborhood SES and race/ethnicity.3,9,11,12,23 These disparities may remain because information on individual-level SES, health insurance coverage, comorbidities, quality of care, and detailed treatment regimens have typically not been available.3,8,9,11,13 Even among studies using national Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results–Medicare linked data, in which more detailed information on treatment and comorbidities are available among some patients aged 65 years and older, survival disparities have remained.12,23,24 However, not all data on medical conditions and health care services are captured in Medicare claims, including data on Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in HMOs (health maintenance organizations).25,26Using electronic medical records data from Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) linked to data from the population-based California Cancer Registry (CCR), we recently reported that chemotherapy use followed practice guidelines but varied by race/ethnicity and neighborhood SES in this integrated health system.27 Therefore, to overcome the limitations of previous studies and address simultaneously the multiple social28 and clinical factors affecting survival after breast cancer diagnosis, we used the linked KPNC–CCR database to determine whether racial/ethnic and socioeconomic differences in short-term overall and breast cancer–specific survival persist in women in a membership-based health system. Our study is the first, to our knowledge, to consider the combined influence of neighborhood SES and race/ethnicity and numerous prognostic factors, including breast cancer subtypes and comorbidities, thought to underlie these long-standing survival disparities among women with uniform access to health care and treatment.     

Community Poverty and Trends in Racial/Ethnic Survival Disparities Among People Diagnosed With AIDS in Florida, 1993–2004

Objectives. We described the racial/ethnic disparities in survival among people diagnosed with AIDS in Florida from 1993 to 2004, as the availability of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) became widespread. We determined whether these disparities decreased after controlling for measures of community-level socioeconomic status.Methods. We compared survival from all causes between non-Hispanic Blacks and non-Hispanic Whites vis-a-vis survival curves and Cox proportional hazards models controlling for demographic, clinical, and area-level poverty factors.Results. Racial/ethnic disparities in survival peaked for those diagnosed during the early implementation of HAART (1996–1998) with a Black-to-White hazard ratio (HR) of 1.72 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.62, 1.83) for males and 1.40 (95% CI = 1.24, 1.59) for females. These HRs declined significantly to 1.48 (95% CI = 1.35, 1.64) for males and nonsignificantly to 1.25 (95% CI = 1.05, 1.48) for females in the 2002 to 2004 diagnosis cohort. Disparities decreased significantly for males but not females when controlling for baseline demographic factors and CD4 count and percentage, and became nonsignificant in the 2002 to 2004 cohort after controlling for area poverty.Conclusions. Area poverty appears to play a role in racial/ethnic disparities even after controlling for demographic factors and CD4 count and percentage.The HIV/AIDS epidemic has disproportionately affected the non-Hispanic Black population in the United States. In 2008, an estimated 545 000 non-Hispanic Blacks were living with HIV/AIDS.1 The estimated prevalence of HIV infection for 2008 among non-Hispanic Blacks was 18.2 per 1000 population, more than 7 times higher than the estimated rate for non-Hispanic Whites (non-Hispanic Whites; 2.4 per 1000).1 Non-Hispanic Blacks as a group not only have a higher prevalence of HIV/AIDS, but once infected also have a lower survival rate. The 3-year survival rate in the United States for people diagnosed with AIDS between 2001 and 2005 was 80% among non-Hispanic Blacks compared with 84% for non-Hispanic Whites, 83% for Hispanics, and 88% for Asians,2 further contributing to the disparities in the HIV mortality rate of 16.8 per 100 000 among non-Hispanic Blacks compared with 1.6 per 100 000 among non-Hispanic Whites during 2007.3 Race/ethnicity is a fundamentally social as opposed to a biological construct,4,5 and survival disparities between non-Hispanic Blacks and non-Hispanic Whites have not generally been seen in settings with universal health care access such as in the Veterans Administration health care system,6 the military health care system,7 or a health maintenance organization.8 Therefore, potentially modifiable social explanations for the observed racial/ethnic disparities in survival should be examined.A most remarkable advance in medical treatment in the past century was the development of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). It led to a significant improvement in survival from HIV/AIDS, 9–12 but racial/ethnic disparities in HIV/AIDS survival remain2, 13–16 and in New York City appeared to widen.17 Despite these well-recognized health disparities, there is a critical gap in the knowledge about why the disparity exists. Two population-based studies, both in San Francisco, California (a city that has provided free HIV care for those who cannot afford it), found that Black race was no longer associated with survival between 1996 and 2001 after controlling for neighborhood socioeconomic status (SES), and that this SES effect seemed to be related to HAART use.18,19 However, in a study using HIV surveillance data from 33 states, racial/ethnic disparities in 5-year survival after HIV diagnosis between 1996 and 2003 persisted after adjusting for county-level SES and other factors.20 The objective of this study was to describe the racial/ethnic disparities in AIDS survival in Florida among people diagnosed with AIDS between 1993 and 2004 (a period spanning the time before and during the widespread availability of HAART) and to determine if these disparities decrease after controlling for community-level SES.     

Connecting Race and Place: A County-Level Analysis of White,Black, and Hispanic HIV Prevalence,Poverty, and Level of Urbanization

Objectives. We evaluated the role of poverty in racial/ethnic disparities in HIV prevalence across levels of urbanization.Methods. Using national HIV surveillance data from the year 2009, we constructed negative binomial models, stratified by urbanization, with an outcome of race-specific, county-level HIV prevalence rates and covariates of race/ethnicity, poverty, and other publicly available data. We estimated model-based Black–White and Hispanic–White prevalence rate ratios (PRRs) across levels of urbanization and poverty.Results. We observed racial/ethnic disparities for all strata of urbanization across 1111 included counties. Poverty was associated with HIV prevalence only in major metropolitan counties. At the same level of urbanization, Black–White and Hispanic–White PRRs were not statistically different from 1.0 at high poverty rates (Black–White PRR = 1.0, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.4, 2.9; Hispanic–White PRR = 0.4, 95% CI = 0.1, 1.6). In nonurban counties, racial/ethnic disparities remained after we controlled for poverty.Conclusions. The association between HIV prevalence and poverty varies by level of urbanization. HIV prevention interventions should be tailored to this understanding. Reducing racial/ethnic disparities will require multifactorial interventions linking social factors with sexual networks and individual risks.Within the United States, disparities in diagnosed HIV prevalence among the 3 major racial/ethnic groups (White, Black, and Hispanic) are striking. At the end of 2009, 43% of people living with an HIV diagnosis were Black, 35% White, and 19% Hispanic.1 Concurrently, Blacks constituted only 12% of the population, non-Hispanic Whites 65%, and Hispanics 16%.2 In the 46 states with confidential name-based HIV reporting since at least January 2007, the estimated diagnosed HIV prevalence rate at the end of 2009 was 952 per 100 000 people among Blacks (near the threshold for a generalized epidemic),1 320 per 100 000 among Hispanics, and 144 per 100 000 among Whites; compared with Whites, therefore, Blacks and Hispanics were respectively 6.6 times and 2.2 times more likely to be living with an HIV diagnosis.A number of mechanisms, primarily structural and social factors, have been proposed to explain these stark racial/ethnic disparities in HIV prevalence.3,4 Structural factors, such as oppression and mistrust in government, may hinder receptivity to prevention outreach and increase HIV prevalence.3 Social constructs (e.g., homophobia and HIV stigma) may discourage open discussion of risk behaviors and limit HIV testing and treatment. Additionally, limited access to health care resources has been identified as a key driver of racial/ethnic health disparities.5 Finally, Black men are more likely than White men to be both incarcerated and infected with HIV while incarcerated.6,7 All of these factors are, in turn, associated with poverty.8 However, specific relationships among these multiple factors and racial/ethnic HIV prevalence disparities, and variation of these relationships across levels of urbanization, are not well understood.Previous analyses of national surveillance and survey data in the United States have focused on associations between HIV prevalence rates, poverty, and race exclusively in urban areas, finding no disparities in poverty-adjusted HIV prevalence rates among heterosexuals in urban settings.9,10 Furthermore, among heterosexuals living in US urban areas with high AIDS prevalence, HIV prevalence rates among those living at or below the poverty line were 2.2 times as high as rates among those living above the poverty line.10 A more recent analysis of US surveillance data confirmed the complex associations between demographics, social determinants of health, and AIDS diagnosis rates.8However, variation in these factors across the urban–rural continuum may limit generalizability of these findings to nonurban settings, where similar research is lacking. In 2009, the proportions of Black and Hispanic Americans living in poverty were roughly twice that of White Americans.11 For all races/ethnicities, the proportion living in poverty is greater in rural areas than in urban areas.12 Additionally, rural areas, with lower HIV prevalence, are more likely to be medically underserved, with reduced access to HIV care and treatment.13In the context of these complex sociodemographic associations, previously observed associations in the United States between poverty and racial/ethnic disparities in HIV may differ outside of urban areas. Therefore, using publicly available county-level data, we first describe the association between poverty and HIV prevalence by race/ethnicity across levels of urbanization. We subsequently examine racial/ethnic disparities in HIV prevalence across levels of urbanization, after controlling for poverty. We hypothesized that, in all strata of urbanization, poverty-adjusted Black–White and Hispanic–White HIV prevalence rate ratios (PRRs) would statistically differ from 1.0.     

Prenatal,Perinatal, Early Life,and Sociodemographic Factors Underlying Racial Differences in the Likelihood of High Body Mass Index in Early Childhood

Objectives. We investigated early childhood disparities in high body mass index (BMI) between Black and White US children.Methods. We compared differences in Black and White children’s prevalence of sociodemographic, prenatal, perinatal, and early life risk and protective factors; fit logistic regression models predicting high BMI (≥ 95th percentile) at age 4 to 5 years to 2 nationally representative samples followed from birth; and performed separate and pooled-survey estimations of these models.Results. After adjustment for sample design–related variables, models predicting high BMI in the 2 samples were statistically indistinguishable. In the pooled-survey models, Black children''s odds of high BMI were 59% higher than White children''s (odds ratio [OR] = 1.59; 95% confidence interval [CI]= 1.32, 1.92). Sociodemographic predictors reduced the racial disparity to 46% (OR = 1.46; 95% CI = 1.17, 1.81). Prenatal, perinatal, and early life predictors reduced the disparity to nonsignificance (OR = 1.18; 95% CI = 0.93, 1.49). Maternal prepregnancy obesity and short-duration or no breastfeeding were among predictors for which racial differences in children’s exposures most disadvantaged Black children.Conclusions. Racial disparities in early childhood high BMI were largely explained by potentially modifiable risk and protective factors.Over recent decades, as the prevalence of high body mass index (BMI; defined as at or above the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 95th percentile1) has increased dramatically among all children,2,3 racial disparities have been documented in nationally representative samples of children at very young ages.4–7 Reviews and prevalence studies highlight the need for a better understanding of the predictors of these disparities in BMI and other indicators of childhood obesity,8,9 especially in early childhood.7Previous research on high BMI in early childhood with racially and ethnically diverse samples has identified risk and protective factors at multiple developmental stages. In the prenatal and perinatal period, risks include higher birth weight,10–13 maternal prepregnancy BMI,14 and maternal smoking during pregnancy.14,15 In infancy and early life, risks include maternal employment,11 especially among highly educated women,12,16 nonparent child care,13,17,18 and television viewing hours.12,19–21 Protective factors include breastfeeding10,12,14 and family meals.12,21,22Studies have shown that young racial/ethnic minority children are exposed to more of these risks and fewer of these protections.23,24 Nevertheless, in analyses of nationally representative samples, high BMI remains more common among Black than White children even after adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics and risk and protective factors.6,11,12,14,16 We suspect that the persistence of racial disparities in these studies might be attributable to omitted predictors or less detailed measurement of the age and duration of children’s exposures. This type of comprehensive assessment is methodologically challenging because of the number of variables and observations required to draw statistically valid inferences.We employed a novel 2-survey methodological design to overcome these challenges. We used data from 2 nationally representative samples of US children followed from birth to age 4 to 5 years in separate and pooled-survey analyses to identify prenatal, perinatal, early life, and sociodemographic factors that may explain Black–White disparities in early childhood high BMI. The separate analyses in 2 surveys that cover a historical period of more than 10 years increased the robustness of our findings to differences in sample design, measurement protocols, and period variability in unobserved confounders. The pooled-survey analyses enhanced the statistical power of our study and thereby strengthened our conclusions about which factors explain Black–White disparities in early childhood high BMI.     

The State of Research on Racial/Ethnic Discrimination in The Receipt of Health Care

Objectives. We conducted a review to examine current literature on the effects of interpersonal and institutional racism and discrimination occurring within health care settings on the health care received by racial/ethnic minority patients.Methods. We searched the PsychNet, PubMed, and Scopus databases for articles on US populations published between January 1, 2008 and November 1, 2011. We used various combinations of the following search terms: discrimination, perceived discrimination, race, ethnicity, racism, institutional racism, stereotype, prejudice or bias, and health or health care. Fifty-eight articles were reviewed.Results. Patient perception of discriminatory treatment and implicit provider biases were the most frequently examined topics in health care settings. Few studies examined the overall prevalence of racial/ethnic discrimination and none examined temporal trends. In general, measures used were insufficient for examining the impact of interpersonal discrimination or institutional racism within health care settings on racial/ethnic disparities in health care.Conclusions. Better instrumentation, innovative methodology, and strategies are needed for identifying and tracking racial/ethnic discrimination in health care settings.Racial/ethnic minorities suffer disproportionate morbidity and mortality from chronic diseases, including cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and stroke. US racial/ethnic health disparities are a consequence of several factors including the disproportionate prevalence of less healthy lifestyles, low socioeconomic status, resource-poor neighborhood environments, and poorer access to care. Another factor is the poorer care received by minority patients after they enter the health care system. The 2005 National Healthcare Disparities Report indicated that White patients receive better quality of care than 53% of Hispanic, 43% of African American, 38% of American Indian/Alaska Native, and 22% of Asian and Pacific Islander patients.1 An updated report in 2010 showed no changes in disparities in 30 of 41 quality core measures for Hispanics, 40 of 47 measures for African Americans, 13 of 19 measures for Asians, and 15 of 22 measures for American Indian or Alaska Natives compared with Non-Hispanic Whites.2 Efforts to eliminate these disparities are hampered by the lack of a full understanding of all proximal causes including any role that racial/ethnic discrimination within the health care system might play.Racial discrimination is defined as “(1) differential treatment on the basis of race that disadvantages a racial group and, (2) treatment on the basis of inadequately justified factors that disadvantage a racial group,”^3(p39) and has been linked to racial/ethnic disparities in health outcomes. Not all discrimination occurs at the individual level or is intended. Seemingly benign policies, practices, structures, and regulations also have the potential to be discriminatory and are collectively referred to as institutional racism. Individual level discrimination and institutional racism may compound the negative effects of other health determinants,4 thereby placing racial/ethnic minorities in double jeopardy.Results of a recent nationwide poll of the United States showed that 74% of African Americans, 69% of other non-Whites, and 30% of Whites report personally experiencing general race-based discrimination.5 Research studies have shown that general experiences with racial/ethnic discrimination are associated with a variety of adverse health outcomes including higher mortality6; lower use of cancer screening7; elevated blood pressure8,9; higher levels of C-reactive protein10; substance use11,12; mental and physical health13,14 including mood, anxiety, and psychiatric disorders12; increased depressive symptoms15; weight gain16; high body mass index17; and smoking.18 Not all studies, however, have found a significant association between general race/ethnicity-based discrimination and health.19,20 Although racial/ethnic discrimination within health care settings and health systems has also been implicated in health disparities,21 little is known about the empirical evidence supporting its prevalence or the association with poor health outcomes.We provide a review of the scientific literature on the prevalence, perception of and effect of racial/ethnic discrimination and institutional racism within health care settings. Our specific objectives were to examine the extent to which recent literature addressed the following research questions:

1. What research methods are currently being used to measure receipt of discriminatory health care?
2. What is the current prevalence of racial/ethnic discrimination in health care settings?
3. Has the perception of or receipt of discriminatory health care changed over time?
4. How does racial/ethnic discrimination influence health in health care settings?
5. How do system level factors, such as institutional practices, policies and regulations contribute to discriminatory health care services?

This review summarizes results of recent research, identifies currently used instrumentation and methodology, and identifies areas where additional research is needed and is a resource for researchers with interest in working in this topic area.     

Health Care Provider Recommendation,Human Papillomavirus Vaccination,and Race/Ethnicity in the US National Immunization Survey

Objectives. Human papillomavirus (HPV) is a common sexually transmitted infection in the United States, yet HPV vaccination rates remain relatively low. We examined racial/ethnic differences in the prevalence of health care provider recommendations for HPV vaccination and the association between recommendation and vaccination.Methods. We used the 2009 National Immunization Survey–Teen, a nationally representative cross-section of female adolescents aged 13 to 17 years, to assess provider-verified HPV vaccination (≥ 1 dose) and participant-reported health care provider recommendation for the HPV vaccine.Results. More than half (56.9%) of female adolescents received a recommendation for the HPV vaccine, and adolescents with a recommendation were almost 5 times as likely to receive a vaccine (odds ratio = 4.81; 95% confidence interval = 4.01, 5.77) as those without a recommendation. Racial/ethnic minorities were less likely to receive a recommendation, but the association between recommendation and vaccination appeared strong for all racial/ethnic groups.Conclusions. Provider recommendations were strongly associated with HPV vaccination. Racial/ethnic minorities and non-Hispanic Whites were equally likely to obtain an HPV vaccine after receiving a recommendation. Vaccine education efforts should target health care providers to increase recommendations, particularly among racial/ethnic minority populations.Human papillomavirus (HPV) is one of the most common sexually transmitted infections in the United States.1,2 In 2006, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) licensed the first HPV vaccine for use in females aged 9 to 26 years. Subsequently, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended routine HPV vaccination of 11- and 12-year-old girls, with ensuing catch-up vaccinations recommended for older female adolescents and young adults.3 However, HPV vaccine coverage of adolescents remains less than 50%,4 and Healthy People 2020 recognizes the facilitation of HPV vaccination as an emerging issue in sexually transmitted diseases.5Health care provider recommendation has been shown to be a strong predictor of vaccination for a wide range of vaccines in older age groups.6–8 Therefore, one potential explanation for the low levels of HPV vaccine coverage is that parents and adolescents are not receiving HPV vaccine recommendations from their health care providers. A previous study indicated that less than 40% of adolescents discussed the HPV vaccine with their health care provider.9African Americans and other minority groups are disproportionately affected by HPV infection and subsequent cervical cancer compared with non-Hispanic Whites.10,11 A better understanding of how to prevent HPV infection among racial/ethnic minorities will have important implications for reducing these health disparities. At the national level, little is known about racial/ethnic differences in the likelihood of receiving an HPV vaccine recommendation by a health care provider. In addition, little is known about the association between receiving a provider recommendation and actual HPV vaccine receipt and whether this association differs by race/ethnicity.Using the National Immunization Survey (NIS), a nationally representative sample of female adolescents aged 13 to 17 years in the United States, we examined racial/ethnic differences in the prevalence of health care provider recommendations for HPV vaccination and in the association between provider recommendation and provider-verified HPV vaccine initiation. In addition, we examined the roles of parental socioeconomic status and health insurance status in influencing the likelihood of provider recommendation and vaccine initiation.     

Trust,Medication Adherence,and Hypertension Control in Southern African American Men

We examined the relationship between trust in the medical system, medication adherence, and hypertension control in Southern African American men. The sample included 235 African American men aged 18 years and older with hypertension. African American men with higher general trust in the medical system were more likely to report better medication adherence (odds ratio [OR] = 1.06), and those with higher self-efficacy were more likely to report better medication adherence and hypertension control (OR = 1.08 and OR = 1.06, respectively).Trust remains an important issue with African Americans (AAs), particularly in the South where its history of mistreatment and racial discrimination at times were highly prevalent.1 Racial and ethnic minorities are more prone than are Whites to distrust the health care establishment, and historically, minority men have had less access to culturally competent providers.2–4 Southern AAs are more likely than are Whites to report perceived racial barriers to care,5 and AA men are more likely than are AA women to report perceived discrimination.6–10 Perceived discrimination and mistreatment are associated with poorer medical adherence and delays in seeking health care.11–14 In addition, higher levels of trust in the health care system are associated with better adherence to recommended care, greater patient satisfaction, and better outcomes.15–18 This has significant implications considering that AA men develop hypertension (HTN) at an earlier age, have higher rates of advanced (stage 3) HTN, are more likely to experience HTN complications, and are less likely to achieve HTN-control compared with White men.19–21 The rates of HTN are even higher in the South for AA men, accounting, in part, for higher stroke (80% higher) and cardiovascular mortality (50% higher) in this subpopulation compared with other groups in other regions.21–23The goal of this brief study was to assess the relationship between trust in the medical, medication adherence,24 and HTN control25 among Southern AA men. Other covariates were perceived discrimination, perceived racism, self-efficacy, and participation in medical decision-making. This study is based on the Race and Health Outcomes Model developed by Williams et al.26     

Hepatitis C Testing,Infection, and Linkage to Care Among Racial and Ethnic Minorities in the United States, 2009–2010

Objectives. We estimated rates and determinants of hepatitis C virus (HCV) testing, infection, and linkage to care among US racial/ethnic minorities.Methods. We analyzed the Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health Across the US Risk Factor Survey conducted in 2009–2010 (n = 53 896 minority adults).Results. Overall, 19% of respondents were tested for HCV. Only 60% of those reporting a risk factor were tested, with much lower rates among Asians reporting injection drug use (40%). Odds of HCV testing decreased with age and increased with higher education. Of those tested, 8.3% reported HCV infection. Respondents with income of $75 000 or more were less likely to report HCV infection than those with income less than $25 000. College-educated non-Hispanic Blacks and Asians had lower odds of HCV infection than those who did not finish high school. Of those infected, 44.4% were currently being followed by a physician, and 41.9% had taken HCV medications.Conclusions. HCV testing and linkage to care among racial/ethnic minorities are suboptimal, particularly among those reporting HCV risk factors. Socioeconomic factors were significant determinants of HCV testing, infection, and access to care. Future HCV testing and prevention activities should be directed toward racial/ethnic minorities, particularly those of low socioeconomic status.Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection affects almost 3 million Americans and is the leading cause of death associated with liver disease in the United States.1,2 Racial disparities in the prevalence of HCV infection have previously been documented: Non-Hispanic Blacks have the highest prevalence of HCV infection in the United States, about twice that reported among non-Hispanic Whites.1 Fewer data exist on the prevalence of hepatitis C among the Latino population, and they have been derived mainly from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, in which only Mexican Americans were represented.1,3,4 Even more limited data are available on the prevalence of HCV infection among Asians and American Indians/Alaska Natives (AI/ANs), with most of the studies localized to specific states or facilities.5–8 More important is the dearth of data regarding the prevalence of hepatitis C testing and access to care—information critical to public health planning and policy—among racial/ethnic minorities in the United States. Early identification and treatment of hepatitis C infection are essential to prevent liver cancer and associated health care costs.9,10 Over the 10-year period from 2010 to 2019, the direct medical cost of chronic HCV infection is projected to exceed $10.7 billion, and the societal cost of premature mortality is estimated at $54.2 billion.11Studies have reported that several minority communities have disproportionately lower socioeconomic status, greater barriers to access to health care, and greater risks for and burden of disease compared with Whites or the general population living in the same geographical area.12–14 Socioeconomic factors have been postulated to play a role in access to care and treatment of hepatitis C.15–17 However, very few studies have assessed the role played by socioeconomic factors in hepatitis C testing and infection among racial/ethnic minorities. Not all racial/ethnic minorities were included in these studies, and the majority failed to control for traditional HCV infection risk factors.1,4,18 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommendations for HCV testing are based on presence of HCV risk factors, hence the need to control for them while assessing the determinants of hepatitis C testing and infection.19In 2006, 1 of every 4 US residents identified themselves as being a racial/ethnic minority,20 and the US Census Bureau has projected that by 2050 minority populations will make up approximately 50% of the US population.21 Thus, a need exists for more information about hepatitis C among the different racial/ethnic groups in the United States to be able to design evidence-based prevention interventions and avoid the projected increases in medical expenses.11The objectives of this study were to assess hepatitis C testing, infection, and access to health care and treatment among racial/ethnic minorities in the United States and to examine whether demographic, socioeconomic, and hepatitis C risk factors influence hepatitis C testing, infection, and access to care in this population.     

Racial Differences in Breast Cancer Stage at Diagnosis in the Mammography Era

Objectives. We assessed racial differences in breast cancer mortality by stage at diagnosis, since mammography became available.Methods. We calculated adjusted odds of distant (versus local or regional) tumors for 143 249 White and 13 571 Black women aged 50 to 69 years, diagnosed with breast cancer between 1982 and 2007 and living in a Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results region. We compared linear trends in stage at diagnosis before and after 1998.Results. Distant-stage cancer was diagnosed in 5.8% of White and 10.2% of Black participants. The Black–White disparity in distant tumors narrowed until 1998 (1998 adjusted difference = 0.65%), before increasing. Between 1982 and 1997, the proportion of distant tumors decreased for Blacks (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]/y = 0.973; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.960, 0.987) and Whites (AOR/y = 0.978; 95% CI = 0.973, 0.983), with no racial differences (P = .47). From 1998 to 2007, the odds of distant versus local or regional tumors increased for Blacks (AOR/y = 1.036; 95% CI = 1.013, 1.060) and Whites (AOR/y = 1.011; 95% CI = 1.002, 1.021); the rate of increase was greater for Blacks than Whites (P = .04).Conclusions. In the mammography era, racial disparities remain in stage at diagnosis.Despite a lower incidence of invasive breast cancer, Black women in the United States are more likely than are White women to die of the disease.1,2 Since 1992, although breast cancer deaths have declined in both White and Black women, the overall disparity in mortality has increased.3 Stage at diagnosis is the strongest predictor of survival in breast cancer,4–6 and Black women are more often diagnosed with advanced-stage disease than are White women.7–10Mammography is an important tool in the early detection of breast cancer.11–13 First introduced in the United States in the early 1980s,14 mammography was initially most prevalent among White women. Racial disparities in mammography rates narrowed by the mid-1990s,12,15 and Black women had rates equivalent to or greater than those of White women between 1996 and 2000.10,15,16 From 2000 to 2005, mammography use declined nationally in women aged 50 to 64 years (78.6% to 71.8%), with a slightly larger decrement for White (−4.0%) than Black (−3.3%) women.13The survival benefit of any screening program, including mammography, is related to its ability to detect tumors at earlier stages. Meta-analyses continue to find mortality benefit for mammography, although uncertainty remains regarding both the appropriate target population and the optimal screening interval.11,17,18 Consistent with the expected effect of screening, an observational cohort analysis found that improvements in screening rates for both Black and White women during the 1990s contributed to diagnosis at an earlier stage in both groups.10Nevertheless, despite generally equivalent rates of mammography for the past 15 years, the racial disparity in breast cancer mortality between Black and White women persists. Although previous meta-analyses suggested a mortality benefit for mammography, randomized controlled data regarding the efficacy of screening programs in minority populations are limited.18,19 Because stage at diagnosis is an important predictor of survival in breast cancer, we assessed temporal changes in the distribution of stage at diagnosis between 1982 and 2007, in both Black and White women, adjusting for covariates known to affect stage at diagnosis.     

Explaining Racial Disparities in Infant Health in Brazil

Objectives. We sought to quantify how socioeconomic, health care, demographic, and geographic effects explain racial disparities in low birth weight (LBW) and preterm birth (PTB) rates in Brazil.Methods. We employed a sample of 8949 infants born between 1995 and 2009 in 15 cities and 7 provinces in Brazil. We focused on disparities in LBW (< 2500 g) and PTB (< 37 gestational weeks) prevalence between infants of African ancestry alone or African mixed with other ancestries, and European ancestry alone. We used a decomposition model to quantify the contributions of conceptually relevant factors to these disparities.Results. The model explained 45% to 94% of LBW and 64% to 94% of PTB disparities between the African ancestry groups and European ancestry. Differences in prenatal care use and geographic location were the most important contributors, followed by socioeconomic differences. The model explained the majority of the disparities for mixed African ancestry and part of the disparity for African ancestry alone.Conclusions. Public policies to improve children’s health should target prenatal care and geographic location differences to reduce health disparities between infants of African and European ancestries in Brazil.Large health disparities exist between Black and White infants in Brazil.1−4 Infant mortality is more than twice as common among Black as White infants in Southern Brazil (30.4 vs 13.9 per 1000).5 Poor birth outcomes including low birth weight (LBW) and preterm birth (PTB) are also more common among Black infants. Racial disparities are also reported in prenatal and postnatal care, with White mothers having more and higher-quality prenatal visits and greater use of postnatal care.6,7Documenting the prevalence and magnitude of racial disparities in infant’s and children’s health is important. However, of more importance is explaining these disparities and identifying the pathways through which they arise to identify contributors that can be targeted by policy interventions. Such effort has lifelong implications because of the importance of children’s health for adult health and human capital attainment.8−12 Because children’s health may have multiplicative effects on health over life, early health disparities may extend into large health and human capital disparities later in life.13,14Studies in the United States have shed light on several pathways that lead to racial disparities in infant’s and children’s health.15−21 Individual-level factors including socioeconomic status (SES),22 maternal age, prenatal care use,22−24 and stressful life events before delivery,17 as well as differences in health care access and quality25−27 and social inequalities because of residential segregation and poverty,15,28,29 are thought to be important contributors to racial disparities in infants’ health in the United States.To our knowledge, there are no studies that simultaneously quantify the contributions of a large number of conceptually relevant factors to racial disparities in infants’ health in Brazil. In this study, we examined the extent to which socioeconomic, health care, demographic, and geographic effects explain disparities in LBW (< 2500 grams) and PTB (< 37 gestational weeks) rates by African ancestry in Brazil. Unlike any previous study for Brazil, we evaluated the contributions of the explanatory factors to the disparities by different degrees of African ancestry. We focused on disparities by African ancestry because they are the most prevalent and affect a large percentage of the Brazilian population.1−5Our study is the first to simultaneously quantify the contributions of several factors both as a group and each on its own (with control for the others) to explaining racial disparities in infant health in Brazil. Such a study is needed not only because Brazil is the largest country in South America but also because there are many historical, demographic, economic, social, cultural, and health care system differences between Brazil and other racially admixed countries such as the United States. These differences limit the generalizability of studies of racial infant health disparities in the United States to the Brazilian population as these differences may modify the underlying factors and the extent of their contributions to the disparities.There is a sharp contrast in perception of race between Brazil and the United States.30 Race for individuals of African and European ancestry in Brazil has been historically and socially defined on a “continuum” of skin color including Black, Brown (mixed between Black and White), or White, instead of the Black or White color line as in the United States. This is in part because of the large racial admixing in Brazil.31 The difference in perceptions of racial identity between Brazil and the United States implies potential differences in cultural and socioeconomic factors related to race and how these may affect health and contribute to racial disparities. Brazil also differs significantly in its economic growth and extent of economic disparities by race from the United States.32 Finally, there are major differences in access to and quality of health care between Brazil and the United States.33,34 For all of these reasons, a study that explains the racial disparities in LBW and PTB in Brazil is needed to draw inferences that can help to inform policymaking and interventions to reduce these disparities in that country.     

Role of Health Insurance on the Survival of Infants With Congenital Heart Defects

Objectives. We examined the association between health insurance and survival of infants with congenital heart defects (CHDs), and whether medical insurance type contributed to racial/ethnic disparities in survival.Methods. We conducted a population-based, retrospective study on a cohort of Florida resident infants born with CHDs between 1998 and 2007. We estimated neonatal, post-neonatal, and infant survival probabilities and adjusted hazard ratios (AHRs) for individual characteristics.Results. Uninsured infants with critical CHDs had 3 times the mortality risk (AHR = 3.0; 95% confidence interval = 1.3, 6.9) than that in privately insured infants. Publicly insured infants had a 30% reduced mortality risk than that of privately insured infants during the neonatal period, but had a 30% increased risk in the post-neonatal period. Adjusting for insurance type reduced the Black–White disparity in mortality risk by 50%.Conclusions. Racial/ethnic disparities in survival were attenuated significantly, but not eliminated, by adjusting for payer status.Major health care reform efforts have sought to improve access to health care by reducing barriers associated with the lack of or insufficient insurance coverage.1,2 Although literature exists on the impact of insurance coverage on health care utilization, there is a relative dearth of population-based evidence on whether insurance coverage is associated with significant health outcomes, particularly among the most medically vulnerable groups, which includes children with birth defects.Infants born with congenital heart defects (CHDs), the most common birth defect and leading cause of death among those born with birth defects, often require timely specialized surgical and medical care3–5; therefore, access to care and service utilization may be important predictors of survival. Although recent advances in surgical interventions have resulted in improved survival rates among infants born with CHDs, mortality remains a significant public health problem, and unexplained racial/ethnic disparities add health equity concerns.6–9 These racial/ethnic disparities in survival suggest that identification of contributing factors could potentially lead to effective strategies to reduce CHD-related infant and childhood mortality, which has been identified as a national public health priority by Healthy People 2020.10Some hospital-based studies have found positive associations between insurance type and postoperative mortality of infants with CHDs.6,8,11–14 Population-based birth defects surveillance programs provide the most complete ascertainment of infants born with major birth defects in a population that, when linked with vital records, provide a more complete source of case data for survival studies. However, most published population-based studies have had only a limited ability to examine factors associated with survival.15–22 Despite the high sensitivity and accuracy of surveillance data,23 payer information is not typically available beyond that reported on the birth certificate.We used population-based birth defects surveillance data, which were linked with data for each hospitalization, to obtain information on the type of health insurance used for hospitalizations initiated during the first year of life. Using these unique data, we examined the association between survival and health insurance type, and the association of health insurance type on racial/ethnic disparities in survival of infants born with CHDs.     

Preconception Stress,Birth Weight,and Birth Weight Disparities Among US Women

Objectives. We examined the impact of preconception acute and chronic stressors on offspring birth weight and racial/ethnic birth weight disparities.Methods. We included birth weights for singleton live first (n = 3512) and second (n = 1901) births to White, Mexican-origin Latina, other-origin Latina, and Black women reported at wave IV of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (2007–2008; ages 24–32 years). We generated factor scores for preconception acute and chronic stressors from wave I (1994–1995; ages 11–19 years) or wave III (2001–2002; ages 18–26 years) for the same cohort of women.Results. Linear regression models indicated that chronic stressors, but not acute stressors, were inversely associated with birth weight for both first and second births (b = −192; 95% confidence interval = −270, −113; and b = −180; 95% confidence interval = −315, −45, respectively), and partially explained the disparities in birth weight between the minority racial/ethnic groups and Whites.Conclusions. Preconception chronic stressors contribute to restricted birth weight and to racial/ethnic birth weight disparities.Birth weight, a marker of infant health, predicts infant survival and subsequent health status. Low birth weight, defined as weight less than 2500 grams, is associated with increased risk of developing both short-term and long-term health problems.1 The prevalence of restricted birth weight has been increasing since the 1980s in the United States,2 and marked differences in birth weight persist by race/ethnicity.3,4 Limitations of prenatal care and other pregnancy interventions to address the increase over time and disparities in prevalence of adverse birth outcomes1,5 have led to a focus on preconception health, defined broadly as health before a pregnancy (although often used in public health practice to denote health during the reproductive years) and including interconception health, or health between pregnancies.6,7 Drawing on a life course framework,8–10 the concept of preconception health suggests that infants are affected not only by maternal exposures in the 9-month prenatal period, but also by maternal development before the pregnancy.One preconception exposure of interest is stress. Pearlin’s stress process model posits that social characteristics including those surrounding race/ethnicity in the United States lead to stress exposures that affect health,11–13 and has been used to understand elevated risk of adverse health outcomes among minority groups.14,15 It is worth noting that elevated stress is not inherent to persons of minority race/ethnicity, because race/ethnicity is a social construct and not a biological one. Rather, stress results from historical and societal constraints leading to differential life chances across groups.16In studies of its health consequences, stress was defined most frequently as exposure to an inventory of life events within a specified period of time.17 These acute stressors, such as a death in the family or exposure to a crime, are relatively brief in duration but may have continued ramifications.17,18 Consistent with a life course perspective, more recent studies examined chronic stressors as a risk factor for health outcomes.18,19 These stressful life conditions, including individual and neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage, recur or accumulate throughout a respondent’s life. However, measurement of chronic stressors is less standardized across studies than that of acute stressors; validated scales of acute events19 but not chronic conditions have been developed.Physiologic mechanisms have been hypothesized to link maternal stress to maternal and infant health.20–22 For example, cumulative stress exposure may result in accelerated aging, or “weathering,” wearing down the body’s adaptive systems.21,22 Weathering in particular was proposed as a source of racial/ethnic disparities in perinatal health, such that the higher stress experienced by African American women causes their reproductive functioning to deteriorate more rapidly than that of White women.22 Other possible pathways through which stress can lead to birth outcome disparities include infection,23 nutrition,19 and pregnancy complications.24The majority of studies assessing the effects on birth outcomes of stress and related factors have relied on prenatal measurement with mixed results.19,25,26 A smaller number of studies have examined effects of acute stressors or specific chronic stressors in the reproductive period.27–30 Although several of these analyses suggested associations, this work included limitations such as small sample sizes,27 European cohorts not generalizable to the United States,29 or retrospectively reported preconception measures.30 Furthermore, none included both acute and chronic stressors or compared racial/ethnic differences for groups besides non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White.To address these gaps in the literature, the objective of this study was to examine the impact of maternal preconception acute stressors (or stressful life events) and preconception chronic stressors (or stressful life conditions) on offspring birth weight and racial/ethnic birth weight disparities. Our hypotheses were as follows: (1) acute and chronic stressors will be inversely associated with birth weight, (2) the distributions of birth weight and stress will vary by maternal race/ethnicity, and (3) stress will partially explain racial/ethnic differences in birth weight where such differences exist. Our conceptual model is shown in Figure 1.Open in a separate windowFIGURE 1—Conceptual model depicting hypothesized relationships among maternal race/ethnicity, preconception stress, and offspring birth weight: National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, United States, 1994–2008.     

Factors Explaining Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Rates of Physician Recommendation for Colorectal Cancer Screening

Objectives. Physician recommendation plays a crucial role in receiving endoscopic screening for colorectal cancer (CRC). This study explored factors associated with racial/ethnic differences in rates of screening recommendation.Methods. Data on 5900 adults eligible for endoscopic screening were obtained from the National Health Interview Survey. Odds ratios of receiving an endoscopy recommendation were calculated for selected variables. Planned, sequenced logistic regressions were conducted to examine the extent to which socioeconomic and health care variables account for racial/ethnic disparities in recommendation rates.Results. Differential rates were observed for CRC screening and screening recommendations among racial/ethnic groups. Compared with Whites, Hispanics were 34% less likely (P < .01) and Blacks were 26% less likely (P < .05) to receive this recommendation. The main predictors that emerged in sequenced analysis were education for Hispanics and Blacks and income for Blacks. After accounting for the effects of usual source of care, insurance coverage, and education, the disparity reduced and became statistically insignificant.Conclusions. Socioeconomic status and access to health care may explain major racial/ethnic disparities in CRC screening recommendation rates.Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cause of cancer death in the United States and a major cause of cancer morbidity.1 Annually in the United States, an estimated 150 000 people are diagnosed and 50 000 people die from this disease.2 With early detection and removal of precancerous polyps, CRC can be preventable, with a 5-year survival rate as high as 90%.3,4Current CRC screening guidelines consist of sigmoidoscopy every 5 years and colonoscopy every 10 years for those aged 50 to 75 years.4 Although an annual fecal occult blood test is also recommended, sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy have higher sensitivity and specificity for the detection of cancerous lesions.5 Sensitivity ranges from 25% to 87% for fecal occult blood test, compared with 92% to 95% for endoscopy (sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy).6 Colonoscopy, the most widely used test for CRC detection and prevention, is considered the gold standard because it can detect and remove precancerous polyps, and a positive result from any other screening test must be followed by this advanced modality.1,7,8 Endoscopy has played a major role in the decreasing trend of CRC mortality in the United States9,10Still, minority groups—especially Blacks—carry a disproportionately higher CRC burden.1,11 From the 1980s to 2007—a period of advance in early detection and treatment—the inequality between Blacks and Whites increased to a 44% difference in CRC mortality rates.1 This disparity could be attributable in part to the fact that, compared with Whites, members of racial/ethnic minority groups were less likely to be screened and diagnosed at the localized, more treatable stage of CRC.1 These lower screening rates partially account for the higher rates of late stage detection and subsequent increases in CRC morbidity and mortality rates among racial/ethnic minorities and low-income populations.1,10,12 Thus, it is necessary to promote utilization of effective screening methods, such as endoscopy, to detect CRC in its early stages, especially among minority groups.Trends in CRC screening from 1992 to 2005 show widening gaps between Whites and minority groups: the disparity increased to 10.3% for Blacks and to 20.5% for Hispanics.13,14 Lower rates of cancer screening, including CRC screening, have been strongly associated with lower rates of physician recommendation, particularly among low-income populations, racial/ethnic minority groups, and women.15,16The health care provider’s role in CRC screening is essential because a physician recommendation is necessary for endoscopic screening.17,18 A study found that more than 90% of people who did not undergo endoscopic screening reported not receiving the necessary recommendation.16 A systematic review discovered that patients identified physician recommendation as the sole CRC-screening facilitator and absence of recommendation as the only barrier.19 It is thus crucial to identify factors that influence the likelihood of receiving a CRC screening recommendation.The present study seeks to build on the work of 2 previous analyses of CRC-screening barriers and predictors among respondents to the 2000 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). Seeff et al. found that “frequent doctor visits in the past year” was the strongest predictor of CRC screening.20 Among the barriers, a “lack of awareness of the need to be screened” was most common, followed by “not receiving a physician recommendation.”20 In bivariate analysis, Coughlin and Thompson found that, among screening-eligible adults who had visited a physician in the past year, members of racial/ethnic minority groups were less likely than Whites to receive an endoscopy recommendation.21 The study mainly focused on reasons for having CRC screenings.We used multivariate analyses and planned sequenced logistic regression to explore patient factors that may explain unequal rates of physician recommendation for endoscopy among Blacks and Hispanics compared with Whites. Factors deemed to have relative importance in terms of statistical significance may help indicate areas of intervention to improve rates of physician recommendation for CRC screening in disadvantaged populations.     

Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Hypertension Prevalence: Reconsidering the Role of Chronic Stress

Objectives. We investigated the association between anticipatory stress, also known as racism-related vigilance, and hypertension prevalence in Black, Hispanic, and White adults.Methods. We used data from the Chicago Community Adult Health Study, a population-representative sample of adults (n = 3105) surveyed in 2001 to 2003, to regress hypertension prevalence on the interaction between race/ethnicity and vigilance in logit models.Results. Blacks reported the highest vigilance levels. For Blacks, each unit increase in vigilance (range = 0–12) was associated with a 4% increase in the odds of hypertension (odds ratio [OR] = 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.00, 1.09). Hispanics showed a similar but nonsignificant association (OR = 1.05; 95% CI = 0.99, 1.12), and Whites showed no association (OR = 0.95; 95% CI = 0.87, 1.03).Conclusions. Vigilance may represent an important and unique source of chronic stress that contributes to the well-documented higher prevalence of hypertension among Blacks than Whites; it is a possible contributor to hypertension among Hispanics but not Whites.Racial and ethnic disparities in hypertension are some of the most widely studied and consequential sources of social disparities in health in the United States.1–3 For example, recent prevalence estimates show that roughly 40% of Black adults but only 30% of White adults have hypertension.4 In addition, the incidence of hypertension occurs at younger ages for Blacks than Whites.1 These disparities are reflected in the larger burden of hypertension-related health and economic costs carried by non-White than White Americans. For example, mortality rates attributable to hypertension are roughly 15 deaths per 100 000 people for White men and women; the mortality rate for Black women is 40 per 100 000 and more than 50 per 100 000 for Black men.5 Among all health conditions, hypertension accounts for the greatest portion of disparities in years of lost life.6 Economically speaking, if Black Americans had the hypertension prevalence of White Americans, about $400 million would be saved in out-of-pocket health care expenses, about $2 billion would be saved in private insurance costs, and $375 million would be saved from Medicare and Medicaid—per year.7Despite the tremendous amount of research devoted to clarifying the factors that generate these disparities, most studies find that they persist after adjustment for a wide range of socioeconomic, behavioral, and biomedical risk factors.8 In fact, although disparities exist for several of these risk factors (e.g., socioeconomic status), numerous studies have shown no disparities in many others (e.g., smoking, obesity for men, lipid profile).2 Despite substantial investment in interventions to eliminate hypertension disparities, evidence suggests that these disparities have actually grown over the past few decades,9 suggesting that numerous unknown factors drive disparities in hypertension.3     

Geographic Residency Status and Census Tract Socioeconomic Status as Determinants of Colorectal Cancer Outcomes

Objectives. We examined the impact of geographic residency status and census tract (CT)-level socioeconomic status (SES) on colorectal cancer (CRC) outcomes.Methods. This was a retrospective cohort study of patients diagnosed with CRC in Georgia for the years 2000 through 2007. Study outcomes were late-stage disease at diagnosis, receipt of treatment, and survival.Results. For colon cancer, residents of lower-middle-SES and low-SES census tracts had decreased odds of receiving surgery. Rural, lower-middle-SES, and low-SES residents had decreased odds of receiving chemotherapy. For patients with rectal cancer, suburban residents had increased odds of receiving radiotherapy, but low SES resulted in decreased odds of surgery. For survival, rural residents experienced a partially adjusted 14% (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.07, 1.22) increased risk of death following diagnosis of CRC that was somewhat explained by treatment differences and completely explained by CT-level SES. Lower-middle- and low-SES participants had an adjusted increased risk of death following diagnosis for CRC (lower-middle: HR = 1.16; 95% CI = 1.10, 1.22; low: HR = 1.24; 95% CI = 1.16, 1.32).Conclusions. Future efforts should focus on developing interventions and policies that target rural residents and lower SES areas to eliminate disparities in CRC-related outcomes.For men and women in the United States, colorectal cancer (CRC) ranks third in incidence and mortality among cancers, with an estimated 142 820 new cases and 50 830 deaths in 2013.1 Reflecting the US population distribution according to geography2 and evidence of similar incidence rates3,4 for rural residents, approximately 20% of incident CRC cases are expected to occur in rural populations. Although CRC incidence is equivalent for rural and urban residents, CRC mortality is higher in rural populations,5 and the causes of rural versus urban disparities in CRC mortality are not well understood. Compared with their suburban and urban counterparts, rural citizens are more likely to be older, live in poverty, have less education, lack health insurance, and have no regular health care provider.6–9 These facets of rural living pose challenges to accessing health promotional messages and high-quality primary care, not to mention treatment of cancer.10,11Those of lower socioeconomic status (SES) have worse health-related outcomes than their more affluent counterparts, and SES often has a gradient effect on health.12 A challenge in studying the association between rurality and health is being able to disentangle the confounding effect of SES associated with geographic residency.13 As we previously demonstrated for a sample of urban and rural residents of Georgia with CRC, rural residence was associated with an increased risk of death following diagnosis.14 A limitation of that study was an inability to account for SES differences between urban and rural populations. If adjustment for SES explains the poorer survival that is associated with rural residence, this explanation provides an opportunity to investigate mediators of the SES effect as potential avenues for intervention.15 Identification of these mediating factors will facilitate the development of focused interventions with the goal of eliminating rural CRC-related disparities.16,17Building on our previous work,14 we evaluated the independent and combined effects of rurality and area-level SES on CRC outcomes. In our previous study, (1) we were unable to evaluate the independent and potential confounding effect of SES on rurality,2 (2) our study population was a sample of the Georgia CRC population, and (3) residents were classified as urban or rural at the county level, which may have resulted in misclassification. In the present study, the exposures of interest were geographic residency status (rural, suburban, or urban) and area-level SES, both at the census tract (CT) level. In addition, the study population represents the entire state of Georgia rather than a sample. The primary study outcome was overall survival. Secondarily, we wanted to evaluate the effect of SES and geography adjusted for SES on the odds of late-stage disease at diagnosis and receipt of first-course treatment.The findings of this study are meant to bring importance to a highly relevant area of public health research: disparities related to rural versus urban cancer outcomes, and specifically to rural CRC outcomes. As a result, interventions may be designed and policies developed to address the difficulties of accessing and providing high-quality cancer care in rural areas of the United States.11 It is through the combination of applying what is learned from epidemiological findings to community-level interventions and policymaking that the elimination of health disparities will occur.18     

Race,Place, and Obesity: The Complex Relationships Among Community Racial/Ethnic Composition,Individual Race/Ethnicity,and Obesity in the United States

Objectives. We explored the association between community racial/ethnic composition and obesity risk.Methods. In this cross-sectional study, we used nationally representative data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey linked to geographic data from the US Decennial Census and Census Business Pattern data.Results. Living in communities with a high Hispanic concentration (≥ 25%) was associated with a 0.55 and 0.42 increase in body mass index (BMI; defined as weight in kilograms divided by the square of height in meters) and 21% and 23% higher odds for obesity for Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites, respectively. Living in a community with a high non-Hispanic Asian concentration (≥ 25%) was associated with a 0.68 decrease in BMI and 28% lower odds for obesity for non-Hispanic Whites. We controlled for individual- and community-level social, economic, and demographic variables.Conclusions. Community racial/ethnic composition is an important correlate of obesity risk, but the relationship differs greatly by individual race/ethnicity. To better understand the obesity epidemic and related racial/ethnic disparities, more must be learned about community-level risk factors, especially how built environment and social norms operate within communities and across racial/ethnic groups.The prevalence of obesity has risen significantly over the past few decades and is now considered one of the most pressing public health problems in the United States.1–5 Currently, more than one third of adults older than 20 years are obese, defined as having a body mass index (BMI; defined as weight in kilograms divided by the square of height in meters) of 30 or more.2 Obesity and sedentary lifestyle are risk factors for a variety of chronic conditions and are leading causes of premature mortality and years of life lost.6–9 Various estimates put the number of deaths attributable to obesity in the United States between 112 000 and 300 000, second only to cigarette smoking.10–12 Members of the current US generation may have a shorter life expectancy than their parents if the obesity epidemic continues.13–16 There are large financial costs associated with obesity, too.17 For example, a recent study found that the annual medical burden of obesity and overweight is nearly 10% of total medical spending, or $147 billion in 2008.18The US obesity epidemic has disproportionately affected certain racial and ethnic minority groups.2,5,19 For example, approximately 50% of African American women are obese compared with only 33% of White women.2 Individual factors such as income and education explain some of the observed racial/ethnic differences in obesity, but wide differences persist even after a large number of individual characteristics are held constant.20 Recent research suggests that community-level characteristics such as the availability and accessibility of sidewalks, parks, and recreational facilities21–26 and food selection and cost27–30 are related to obesity independent of individual characteristics. Thus, one line of research documents wide racial/ethnic disparities in the risk of obesity at the individual level, whereas another identifies several community characteristics that are associated with both the risk of obesity and related racial/ethnic disparities. There is a gap between these 2 lines of research; little is known about how the racial and ethnic composition of residential communities is associated with individual-level obesity risk and how this association might differ by individual-level race/ethnicity. Investigating community-level racial/ethnic composition as a risk factor for obesity, above and beyond individuals’ own characteristics, will help improve understanding of racial/ethnic disparities in health, and guide future interventions to eliminate health disparities, which is a national priority.31Although little empirical evidence exists on the possible relationship between community racial/ethnic composition and obesity, there is reason to hypothesize that a relationship might exist. Social norms regarding body weight may differ significantly across ethnic groups. For example, perceived ideal body size for non-Hispanic Black women is larger than for non-Hispanic White women, and non-Hispanic White women report dissatisfaction with their bodies at significantly lower weights than do non-Hispanic Black women.32 Furthermore, non-Hispanic Black men report a preference for larger body sizes in female partners than do non-Hispanic White men.33 Given that obesity rates and norms regarding body weight differ across racial and ethnic groups and, at the same time, the United States is highly segregated along racial and ethnic lines, it is plausible that norms regarding body weight could develop at the community level. This, in turn, may give rise to an association between community-level racial/ethnic composition and the risk of obesity independent of the characteristics of individuals.This study addresses 2 main questions. First, is the racial/ethnic composition of communities associated with obesity beyond what would be expected given the characteristics of the individuals? Second, if an association exists, does it differ on the basis of an individual’s own racial/ethnic identity? Our findings will enhance understanding of disparities in the US obesity epidemic, and the mechanisms by which certain racial/ethnic minorities are disproportionately affected.     

Factors That Mediate Racial/Ethnic Disparities in US Fetal Death Rates

Objectives. We sought to determine the importance of socioeconomic factors, maternal comorbid conditions, antepartum and intrapartum complications of pregnancy, and fetal factors in mediating racial disparities in fetal deaths.Methods. We undertook a mediation analysis on a retrospective cohort study of hospital-based deliveries with a gestational age between 23 and 44 weeks in California, Missouri, and Pennsylvania from 1993 to 2005 (n = 7 104 674).Results. Among non-Hispanic Black women and Hispanic women, the fetal death rate was higher than among non-Hispanic White women (5.9 and 3.6 per 1000 deliveries, respectively, vs 2.6 per 1000 deliveries; P < .01). For Black women, fetal factors mediated the largest percentage (49.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 42.7, 54.7) of the disparity in fetal deaths, whereas antepartum and intrapartum factors mediated some of the difference in fetal deaths for both Black and Asian women. Among Hispanic women, socioeconomic factors mediated 35.8% of the disparity in fetal deaths (95% CI = 25.8%, 46.2%).Conclusions. The factors that mediate racial/ethnic disparities in fetal death differ depending on the racial/ethnic group. Interventions targeting mediating factors specific to racial/ethnic groups, such as improved access to care, may help reduce US fetal death disparities.In the United States, there continue to be racial/ethnic disparities in perinatal outcomes such as fetal death.1–4 Studies have identified factors that are associated with increased rates of fetal death overall, including advanced maternal age,5–7 previous cesarean delivery,8 inadequate prenatal care,9 and some chronic medical conditions.10–12 However, none of these studies examined whether higher fetal death rates seen in minority racial/ethnic groups are potentially mediated by factors that occur later in pregnancy.13–15 Understanding these factors and whether these mediating factors differ between racial/ethnic groups will better focus potential interventions to reduce these disparities.We have identified factors that mediate racial/ethnic differences in fetal death rates between 23 and 44 weeks gestation. We grouped factors into 4 areas using the conceptual framework shown in Figure 1. These sets of factors included socioeconomic factors; maternal preexisting comorbid conditions; antepartum and intrapartum factors, primarily complications of pregnancy; and fetal factors, specifically gestational age at delivery.Open in a separate windowFIGURE 1—Hierarchical conceptual framework: racial/ethnic differences in fetal death, California, Missouri, Pennsylvania, 1993–2005.Note. SES = socioeconomic status. The residual disparity in fetal deaths, or fetal deaths unexplained by any of the included factors, is shown as the bottom pathway.     

Disparities in Fetal Death and First Day Death: The Influence of Risk Factors in 2 Time Periods

Objectives. We examined how changes in risk factors over time influence fetal, first day, and combined fetal–first day mortality and subsequent racial/ethnic disparities.Methods. We selected deliveries to US resident non-Hispanic White and Black mothers from the linked live birth–infant death cohort and fetal deaths files (1995–1996; 2001–2002) and calculated changes over time of mortality rates, odds, and relative odds ratios (RORs) overall and among mothers with modifiable risk factors (smoking, diabetes, or hypertensive disorders).Results. Adjusted odds ratios (AORs) for fetal mortality overall (AOR = 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.96, 1.01) and among Blacks (AOR = 0.98; 95% CI = 0.93, 1.03) indicated no change over time. Among women with modifiable risk factors, the RORs indicated no change in disparities. The ROR was not significant for fetal mortality (ROR = 0.96; 95% CI = 0.83, 1.01) among smokers, but there was evidence of some decline. There was evidence of increase in RORs in fetal death among mothers with diabetes and hypertensive disorders, but differences were not significant.Conclusions. Disparities in fetal, first day, and combined fetal–first day mortality have persisted and reflect discrepancies in care provision or other factors more challenging to measure.Stillbirths (or fetal deaths) have recently received international attention as an unrecognized public health issue.1 Although much of the focus has been on developing countries, fetal deaths continue to be a concern in developed nations. In the United States, there have been improvements in perinatal (fetal plus infant) mortality over the past few decades, with a 56% decline overall from 1970 (14.0 per 1000 live births plus fetal deaths) to 2005 (6.2 per 1000 live births plus fetal deaths).2 However, substantial disparities remain and in some cases continue to grow.3–7 The 2-fold disparities between non-Hispanic Blacks (Blacks) and non-Hispanic Whites (Whites) persist as demonstrated by several studies examining the racial and ethnic disparities in perinatal mortality.4–9 The primary reason for this widening gap is in part attributable to larger declines in infant and fetal mortality among Whites compared with Blacks.Although many studies have considered temporal changes in perinatal death5,10 and other studies have considered the influence of selected maternal characteristics and risk factors on adverse birth outcomes,5,6,8,11 few studies have simultaneously examined these temporal changes in fetal and early infant death in the context of maternal characteristics and risk factors.Our purpose was to examine how temporal changes in maternal, sociodemographic, and medical risk factors influence the changes in fetal, first day, and combined fetal–first day (fetal plus first day death) mortality. We explored racial and ethnic variations and disparities for selected modifiable maternal characteristics and risk factors as related to mortality outcomes, possibly providing some insight into systematic disparities in perinatal health and clinical management. If differences in perinatal or fetal mortality exist between racial and ethnic groups with these potentially modifiable characteristics or behaviors, it is possible that there may be differentials in access to health care or provision of care. We chose to examine first day deaths in combination with fetal deaths because an artificial reduction in fetal deaths may account for a rise in infant deaths. Events once classified as fetal deaths may now be classified as first day deaths reflecting misclassification of the timing of death; changes in management of the delivery of very small, very early fetuses; or overall changes in baseline health.     

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Depression Care in Community-Dwelling Elderly in the United States

Objectives. We investigated racial/ethnic disparities in the diagnosis and treatment of depression among community-dwelling elderly.Methods. We performed a secondary analysis of Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey data (n = 33 708) for 2001 through 2005. We estimated logistic regression models to assess the association of race/ethnicity with the probability of being diagnosed and treated for depression with either antidepressant medication or psychotherapy.Results. Depression diagnosis rates were 6.4% for non-Hispanic Whites, 4.2% for African Americans, 7.2% for Hispanics, and 3.8% for others. After we adjusted for a range of covariates including a 2-item depression screener, we found that African Americans were significantly less likely to receive a depression diagnosis from a health care provider (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.41, 0.69) than were non-Hispanic Whites; those diagnosed were less likely to be treated for depression (AOR = 0.45; 95% CI = 0.30, 0.66).Conclusions. Among elderly Medicare beneficiaries, significant racial/ethnic differences exist in the diagnosis and treatment of depression. Vigorous clinical and public health initiatives are needed to address this persisting disparity in care.Depression is a significant public health concern for older Americans.1 It has been estimated that 6.6% of older Americans experience an episode of major depression during 1 year.2 If untreated or undertreated, depression can significantly diminish quality of life3 and increase mortality.4 Depression can complicate several comorbid general medical conditions that are common in older populations, including congestive heart failure,5,6 diabetes,7 and arthritis.8 Antidepressant treatment and psychotherapy have been shown to be effective in increasing rates of remission for depression in older adults.9Several studies during the 1990s identified racial/ethnic differences in the diagnosis and treatment of depression, both in the general adult population and among the elderly.10–14 Although there was a general increase in rates of depression diagnosis and antidepressant use during this period, some studies suggest that these increases are not consistent across racial/ethnic subgroups15 and that disparities in the treatment of diagnosed depression are persistent.10,16,17More recent studies (often combining the nonelderly and elderly adult population rather than considering these groups separately) have provided mixed findings. Some evidence indicates that minority group members with depression continue to receive less mental health care than do non-Hispanic Whites, and some studies suggest that mental health treatment differences by race/ethnicity may have worsened in the early 2000s.18–21 By contrast, 1 recent national study reported that although overall increases in treatment rates were modest in the 2000s, there were significant increases in treatment rates among African Americans, possibly narrowing the racial/ethnic gap among adults in general.22 However, this study did not examine disparities in treatment separately among older adults and was founded on household reported conditions that are only modestly related to provider diagnoses.23 The pattern of diffusion of depression treatment may differ between elderly and nonelderly adults. Consequently, racial/ethnic differences in diagnosis and treatment among the elderly remain a potentially important public health concern.We investigated whether there are racial/ethnic differences (1) in the rate of diagnosis of depression among the elderly, controlling for sociodemographic characteristics and depression symptoms (depressed mood and anhedonia) reported on a 2-item screener; and (2) in the treatment provided to those diagnosed with depression by a health care provider, adjusting for these covariates. In a large, nationally representative sample, we examined whether relationships between race/ethnicity and depression diagnosis or depression treatment are mediated by insurance coverage and perceived access to medical care, depression symptoms, and severity, or by other global measures of health such as self-reported health status and impairment in daily activities.