Measurement Equivalence of the K6 Scale: The Effects of Race/Ethnicity and Language.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Kim G
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5468522 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Measurement Equivalence of the K6 Scale: The Effects of Race/Ethnicity and Language.
Kim Giyeon G DeCoster Jamie J Bryant Ami N AN Ford Katy L KL
Assessment 20150817 6
This study examined the measurement equivalence of the K6 across diverse racial/ethnic and linguistic groups in the U.S. differential item functioning analyses using item response theory were conducted among 44,846 U.S. adults drawn from the California Health Interview Survey. Results show that four items ("nervous," "restless," "depressed," and "everything an effort") varied significantly across races/ethnicities and four items ("nervous," "hopeless," "restless," and "depressed") varied signifi ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveTo improve an existing method, Medicare Bayesian Improved Surname Geocoding (MBISG) 1.0 that augments the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' (CMS) administrative measure of race/ethnicity with surname and geographic data to estimate race/ethnicity.Data sources/study settingData from 284 627 respondents to the 2014 Medicare CAHPS survey.Study designWe compared performance (cross-validated Pearson correlation of estimates and self-reported race/ethnicity) for several alternative models predicting self-reported race/ethnicity in cross-sectional observational data to assess accuracy of estimates, resulting in MBISG 2.0. MBISG 2.0 adds to MBISG 1.0 first name, demographic, and coverage predictors of race/ethnicity and uses a more flexible data aggregation framework.Data collection/extraction methodsWe linked survey-reported race/ethnicity to CMS administrative and US census data.Principal findingsMBISG 2.0 removed 25-39 percent of the remaining MBISG 1.0 error for Hispanics, Whites, and Asian/Pacific Islanders (API), and 9 percent for Blacks, resulting in correlations of 0.88 to 0.95 with self-reported race/ethnicity for these groups.ConclusionsMBISG 2.0 represents a substantial improvement over MBISG 1.0 and the use of CMS administrative data on race/ethnicity alone. MBISG 2.0 is used in CMS' public reporting of Medicare Advantage contract HEDIS measures stratified by race/ethnicity for Hispanics, Whites, API, and Blacks.
| S-EPMC6338295 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveMost studies that have evaluated patient-reported outcomes, such as those utilizing the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function Short Form 10a (PF10a) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), have been performed in white and English-speaking populations. The aim of our study was to assess the measurement properties of the PF10a in a racially/ethnically diverse population with RA and to determine the effect of non-English language proficiency, insurance status, and race/ethnicity on the validity and responsiveness of the PF10a.MethodsData were abstracted from electronic health records for all RA patients seen in a university-based rheumatology clinic between 2013 and 2017. We evaluated the use of the PF10a, floor and ceiling effects, and construct validity across categories of language preference, insurance, and race/ethnicity. We used standardized response means and linear mixed-effects models to evaluate the responsiveness of the PF10a to longitudinal changes in the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) across population subgroups.ResultsWe included 595 patients in a cross-sectional analysis of validity and 341 patients in longitudinal responsiveness analyses of the PF10a. The PF10a had acceptable floor and ceiling effects and was successfully implemented. We observed good construct validity and responsiveness to changes in CDAI among white subjects, English speakers, and privately insured patients. However, constructs evaluated by the PF10a were less correlated with clinical measures among Chinese speakers and Hispanic subjects, and less sensitive to clinical improvements among Medicaid patients and Spanish speakers.ConclusionWhile the PF10a has good measurement properties and is both practical and acceptable for implementation in routine clinical practice, we also found important differences across racial/ethnic groups and those with limited English proficiency that warrant further investigation.
| S-EPMC7449702 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceEmergency department (ED) triage substantially affects how long patients wait for care but triage scoring relies on few objective criteria. Prior studies suggest that Black and Hispanic patients receive unequal triage scores, paralleled by disparities in the depth of physician evaluations.ObjectivesTo examine whether racial disparities in triage scores and physician evaluations are present across a multicenter network of academic and community hospitals and evaluate whether patients who do not speak English face similar disparities.Design, setting, and participantsThis was a cross-sectional, multicenter study examining adults presenting between February 28, 2019, and January 1, 2023, across the Mass General Brigham Integrated Health Care System, encompassing 7 EDs: 2 urban academic hospitals and 5 community hospitals. Analysis included all patients presenting with 1 of 5 common chief symptoms.ExposuresEmergency department nurse-led triage and physician evaluation.Main outcomes and measuresAverage Triage Emergency Severity Index [ESI] score and average visit work relative value units [wRVUs] were compared across symptoms and between individual minority racial and ethnic groups and White patients.ResultsThere were 249 829 visits (149 861 female [60%], American Indian or Alaska Native 0.2%, Asian 3.3%, Black 11.8%, Hispanic 18.8%, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander <0.1%, White 60.8%, and patients identifying as Other race or ethnicity 5.1%). Median age was 48 (IQR, 29-66) years. White patients had more acute ESI scores than Hispanic or Other patients across all symptoms (eg, chest pain: Hispanic, 2.68 [95% CI, 2.67-2.69]; White, 2.55 [95% CI, 2.55-2.56]; Other, 2.66 [95% CI, 2.64-2.68]; P < .001) and Black patients across most symptoms (nausea/vomiting: Black, 2.97 [95% CI, 2.96-2.99]; White: 2.90 [95% CI, 2.89-2.91]; P < .001). These differences were reversed for wRVUs (chest pain: Black, 4.32 [95% CI, 4.25-4.39]; Hispanic, 4.13 [95% CI, 4.08-4.18]; White 3.55 [95% CI, 3.52-3.58]; Other 3.96 [95% CI, 3.84-4.08]; P < .001). Similar patterns were seen for patients whose primary language was not English.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study, patients who identified as Black, Hispanic, and Other race and ethnicity were assigned less acute ESI scores than their White peers despite having received more involved physician workups, suggesting some degree of mistriage. Clinical decision support systems might reduce these disparities but would require careful calibration to avoid replicating bias.
| S-EPMC10570890 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe current study aimed to determine whether electronic scale (e-scale) weight measurements are concordant with in-person clinic weights.MethodsE-scale and in-person clinic weight measurements from 248 active duty military personnel enrolled in a weight-loss intervention study were used. E-scale and clinic measurements were matched and tested to determine whether measurements were significantly different from each other. Equivalence between the two measurements was tested among the cohort and when stratifying by gender, BMI, race, and age. The study also examined whether matching the times of clinic and e-scale measurements or averaging multiple measurements was optimal, and whether using e-scale and clinic measurements from the same day or across a specified amount of time was acceptable.ResultsOverall, e-scale and clinic measurements were significantly different from each other but did not differ from equality. Additionally, using e-scale and clinic weight measurements that were taken on the same day may be a preferable method compared with using measurements within a week of each other, which leads to weight underprediction among e-scale measurements.ConclusionsE-scales display good measurement concordance. E-scales may be helpful when studying highly mobile populations, such as military personnel, and could potentially eliminate the need for in-person visits.
| S-EPMC7575123 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Collection of data on race, ethnicity, and language preference is required as part of the "meaningful use" of electronic health records (EHRs). These data serve as a foundation for interventions to reduce health disparities.Our aim was to compare the accuracy of EHR-recorded data on race, ethnicity, and language preference to that reported directly by patients.Data collected as part of a tobacco cessation intervention for minority and low-income smokers across a network of 13 primary care clinics (n = 569).Patients were more likely to self-report Hispanic ethnicity (19.6 % vs. 16.6 %, p < 0.001) and African American race (27.0 % vs. 20.4 %, p < 0.001) than was reported in the EHR. Conversely, patients were less likely to complete the survey in Spanish than the language preference noted in the EHR suggested (5.1 % vs. 6.3 %, p < 0.001). Thirty percent of whites self-reported identification with at least one other racial or ethnic group, as did 37.0 % of Hispanics, and 41.0 % of African Americans. Over one-third of EHR-documented Spanish speakers elected to take the survey in English. One-fifth of individuals who took the survey in Spanish were recorded in the EHR as English-speaking.We demonstrate important inaccuracies and the need for better processes to document race/ ethnicity and language preference in EHRs.
| S-EPMC4441665 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimNurses assess patients' pain using several validated tools. It is not known what disparities exist in pain assessment for medicine inpatients. Our purpose was to measure differences in pain assessment across patient characteristics, including race, ethnicity, and language status.MethodsRetrospective cohort study of adult general medicine inpatients from 2013 to 2021. The primary exposures were race/ethnicity and limited English proficiency (LEP) status. The primary outcomes were 1) the type and odds of which pain assessment tool nursing used and 2) the relationship between pain assessments and daily opioid administration.ResultsOf 51,602 patient hospitalizations, 46.1% were white, 17.4% Black, 16.5% Asian, and 13.2% Latino. 13.2% of patients had LEP. The most common pain assessment tool was the Numeric Rating Scale (68.1%), followed by the Verbal Descriptor Scale (23.7%). Asian patients and patients with LEP were less likely to have their pain documented numerically. In multivariable logistic regression, patients with LEP (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.58-0.65) and Asian patients (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.70-0.78) had the lowest odds of numeric ratings. Latino, Multi-Racial, and patients classified as Other also had lower odds than white patients of numeric ratings. Asian patients and patients with LEP received the fewest daily opioids across all pain assessment categories.ConclusionsAsian patients and patients with LEP were less likely than other patient groups to have a numeric pain assessment and received the fewest opioids. These inequities may serve as the basis for the development of equitable pain assessment protocols.
| S-EPMC10954313 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Emotional and behavioral problems among children and adolescents may be studied using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire, containing five subscales, based on ratings by parents, teachers, or adolescents themselves. We investigate two measurement issues using data from a longitudinal sample of 8,806 participants aged 7 to 9 years and 11 to 13 years from the Bergen Child Study in Bergen, Norway. First, convergent validity of parent and teacher ratings is studied using a multitrait-multimethod approach. Second, longitudinal measurement equivalence is studied using confirmatory factor analysis, which requires us to deal with the considerable attrition. The multitrait-multimethod indicates not only good convergent validity but also considerable method variance for parents and teachers. The reliability and validity of some subscales are relatively low. Attrition analysis indicates that attrition is not missing completely at random, but estimation assuming missing at random makes no real difference. We conclude that assuming missing completely at random is acceptable. Comparing ratings by parents and teachers results in partial scalar equivalence. In addition, all subscales exhibit (partial) longitudinal scalar measurement equivalence. We recommend using latent variable modeling and not summated scales for longitudinal modeling using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire.
| S-EPMC7545650 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Patients and families at risk for health disparities may also be at higher risk for diagnostic errors but less likely to report them. This study aimed to explore differences in race, ethnicity, and language preference associated with patient and family contributions and concerns using an electronic previsit tool designed to engage patients and families in the diagnostic process (DxP). Cross-sectional study of 5,731 patients and families presenting to three subspecialty clinics at an urban pediatric hospital May to December 2021 who completed a previsit tool, codeveloped and tested with patients and families. Prior to each visit, patients/families were invited to share visit priorities, recent histories, and potential diagnostic concerns. We used logistic regression to determine factors associated with patient-reported diagnostic concerns. We conducted chart review on a random subset of visits to review concerns and determine whether patient/family contributions were included in the visit note. Participants provided a similar mean number of contributions regardless of patient race, ethnicity, or language preference. Compared with patients self-identifying as White, those self-identifying as Black (odds ratio [OR]: 1.70; 95% confidence interval [CI]: [1.18, 2.43]) or "other" race (OR: 1.48; 95% CI: [1.08, 2.03]) were more likely to report a diagnostic concern. Participants who preferred a language other than English were more likely to report a diagnostic concern than English-preferring patients (OR: 2.53; 95% CI: [1.78, 3.59]. There were no significant differences in physician-verified diagnostic concerns or in integration of patient contributions into the note based on race, ethnicity, or language preference. Participants self-identifying as Black or "other" race, or those who prefer a language other than English were 1.5 to 2.5 times more likely than their counterparts to report potential diagnostic concerns when proactively asked to provide this information prior to a visit. Actively engaging patients and families in the DxP may uncover opportunities to reduce the risk of diagnostic errors and potential safety disparities.
| S-EPMC10651368 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHealthcare disparities are well documented across multiple subspecialties in orthopaedics. The widespread implementation of telemedicine risks worsening these disparities if not carefully executed, despite original assumptions that telemedicine improves overall access to care. Telemedicine also poses unique challenges such as potential language or technological barriers that may alter previously described patterns in orthopaedic disparities.Questions/purposesAre the proportions of patients who use telemedicine across orthopaedic services different among (1) racial and ethnic minorities, (2) non-English speakers, and (3) patients insured through Medicaid during a 10-week period after the implementation of telemedicine in our healthcare system compared with in-person visits during a similar time period in 2019?MethodsThis was a retrospective comparative study using electronic medical record data to compare new patients establishing orthopaedic care via outpatient telemedicine at two academic urban medical centers between March 2020 and May 2020 with new orthopaedic patients during the same 10-week period in 2019. A total of 11,056 patients were included for analysis, with 1760 in the virtual group and 9296 in the control group. Unadjusted analyses demonstrated patients in the virtual group were younger (median age 57 years versus 59 years; p < 0.001), but there were no differences with regard to gender (56% female versus 56% female; p = 0.66). We used self-reported race or ethnicity as our primary independent variable, with primary language and insurance status considered secondarily. Unadjusted and multivariable adjusted analyses were performed for our primary and secondary predictors using logistic regression. We also assessed interactions between race or ethnicity, primary language, and insurance type.ResultsAfter adjusting for age, gender, subspecialty, insurance, and median household income, we found that patients who were Hispanic (odds ratio 0.59 [95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.91]; p = 0.02) or Asian were less likely (OR 0.73 [95% CI 0.53 to 0.99]; p = 0.04) to be seen through telemedicine than were patients who were white. After controlling for confounding variables, we also found that speakers of languages other than English or Spanish were less likely to have a telemedicine visit than were people whose primary language was English (OR 0.34 [95% CI 0.18 to 0.65]; p = 0.001), and that patients insured through Medicaid were less likely to be seen via telemedicine than were patients who were privately insured (OR 0.83 [95% CI 0.69 to 0.98]; p = 0.03).ConclusionDespite initial promises that telemedicine would help to bridge gaps in healthcare, our results demonstrate disparities in orthopaedic telemedicine use based on race or ethnicity, language, and insurance type. The telemedicine group was slightly younger, which we do not believe undermines the findings. As healthcare moves toward increased telemedicine use, we suggest several approaches to ensure that patients of certain racial, ethnic, or language groups do not experience disparate barriers to care. These might include individual patient- or provider-level approaches like expanded telemedicine schedules to accommodate weekends and evenings, institutional investment in culturally conscious outreach materials such as advertisements on community transport systems, or government-level provisions such as reimbursement for telephone-only encounters.Level of evidenceLevel III, therapeutic study.
| S-EPMC8208394 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceHealth care disparities are well-documented among children based on race, ethnicity, and language for care. An agenda that outlines research priorities for disparities in pediatric emergency care (PEC) is lacking.ObjectiveTo investigate research priorities for disparities in PEC among medical personnel, researchers, and health care-affiliated community organizations.Design, setting, and participantsIn this survey study, a modified Delphi approach was used to investigate research priorities for disparities in PEC. An initial list of research priorities was developed by a group of experienced PEC investigators in 2021. Partners iteratively assessed the list through 2 rounds of electronic surveys using Likert-type responses in late 2021 and early 2022. Priorities were defined as achieving consensus if they received a score of highest priority or priority by at least 60% of respondents. Asynchronous engagement of participants via online web-conferencing platforms and email correspondence with electronic survey administration was used. Partners were individuals and groups involved in PEC. Participants represented interest groups, research and medical personnel organizations, health care partners, and laypersons with roles in community and family hospital advisory councils. Participants were largely from the US, with input from international PEC research networks.OutcomeConsensus agenda of research priorities to identify and address health care disparities in PEC.ResultsPEC investigators generated an initial list of 27 potential priorities. Surveys were completed by 38 of 47 partners (80.6%) and 30 of 38 partners (81.1%) in rounds 1 and 2, respectively. Among 30 respondents who completed both rounds, there were 7 family or community partners and 23 medical or research partners, including 4 international PEC research networks. A total of 12 research priorities achieved the predetermined consensus threshold: (1) systematic efforts to reduce disparities; (2) race, ethnicity, and language data collection and reporting; (3) recognizing and mitigating clinician implicit bias; (4) mental health disparities; (5) social determinants of health; (6) language and literacy; (7) acute pain-management disparities; (8) quality of care equity metrics; (9) shared decision-making; (10) patient experience; (11) triage and acuity score assignment; and (12) inclusive research participation.Conclusions and relevanceThese results suggest a research priority agenda that may be used as a guide for investigators, research networks, organizations, and funding agencies to engage in and support high-priority disparities research topics in PEC.
| S-EPMC10644218 | biostudies-literature