Dataset Information

Race/Ethnicity and Geographic Access to Urban Trauma Care.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Little is known about the distribution of life-saving trauma resources by racial/ethnic composition in US cities, and if racial/ethnic minority populations disproportionately live in US urban trauma deserts.

Objective

To examine racial/ethnic differences in geographic access to trauma care in the 3 largest US cities, considering the role of residential segregation and neighborhood poverty.

Design, setting, and participants

A cross-sectional, multiple-methods study evaluated census tract data from the 2015 American Community Survey in Chicago, Illinois; Los Angeles (LA), California; and New York City (NYC), New York (N = 3932). These data were paired to geographic coordinates of all adult level I and II trauma centers within an 8.0-km buffer of each city. Between February and September 2018, small-area analyses were conducted to assess trauma desert status as a function of neighborhood racial/ethnic composition, and geospatial analyses were conducted to examine statistically significant trauma desert hot spots.

Main outcomes and measures

In small-area analyses, a trauma desert was defined as travel distance greater than 8.0 km to the nearest adult level I or level II trauma center. In geospatial analyses, relative trauma deserts were identified using travel distance as a continuous measure. Census tracts were classified into (1) racial/ethnic composition categories, based on patterns of residential segregation, including white majority, black majority, Hispanic/Latino majority, and other or integrated; and (2) poverty categories, including nonpoor and poor.

Results

Chicago, LA, and NYC contained 798, 1006, and 2128 census tracts, respectively. A large proportion comprised a black majority population in Chicago (35.1%) and NYC (21.4%), compared with LA (2.7%). In primary analyses, black majority census tracts were more likely than white majority census tracts to be located in a trauma desert in Chicago (odds ratio [OR], 8.48; 95% CI, 5.71-12.59) and LA (OR, 5.11; 95% CI, 1.50-17.39). In NYC, racial/ethnic disparities were not significant in unadjusted models, but were significant in models adjusting for poverty and race-poverty interaction effects (adjusted OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.27-2.74). In comparison, Hispanic/Latino majority census tracts were less likely to be located in a trauma desert in NYC (OR, 0.03; 95% CI, 0.01-0.11) and LA (OR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.22-0.40), but slightly more likely in Chicago (OR, 2.38; 95% CI, 1.56-3.64).

Conclusions and relevance

In this study, black majority census tracts were the only racial/ethnic group that appeared to be associated with disparities in geographic access to trauma centers.

SUBMITTER: Tung EL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6484639 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe COVID-19 pandemic led to unprecedented disruptions in health care. Little is known about whether health care access and preventive health screenings among US adults have recovered to prepandemic levels, and how patterns varied by race and ethnicity.ObjectiveTo evaluate health care access and preventive health screenings among eligible US adults in 2021 and 2022 compared with prepandemic year 2019, overall and by race and ethnicity.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study used data from US adults aged 18 years or older who participated in the National Health Interview Survey in 2021 and 2022. Survey weights provided by the National Health Interview Survey were used to generate nationally representative estimates. Data were analyzed from May 23 to November 13, 2023.Main outcomes and measuresMeasures of health care access included the proportion of adults with a usual place for care, those with a wellness visit, and those who delayed or did not receive medical care due to cost within the past year. Preventive health screening measures included eligible adults who received blood pressure, cholesterol, or blood glucose screening within the past year (2021), as well as colorectal, cervical, breast, and prostate cancer screenings based on US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines.ResultsThe unweighted study population included 89 130 US adults. The weighted population included 51.6% females; 16.8% Hispanic, 5.9% non-Hispanic Asian (hereafter, Asian), 11.8% non-Hispanic Black (hereafter, Black), 62.8% non-Hispanic White (hereafter, White) individuals; and 2.9% individuals of other races and ethnicities (including American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, or multiracial). After adjusting for age and sex, having a usual place for health care did not differ among adults in 2021 or 2022 vs 2019 (adjusted rate ratio [ARR] for each year, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.99-1.01). However, fewer participants had wellness visits in 2022 compared with 2019 (ARR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.99), with the most pronounced decline among Asian adults (ARR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.92-0.98). In addition, adults were less likely to delay medical care (ARR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.73-0.87) or to not receive care (ARR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.69-0.83) due to cost in 2022 vs 2019. Preventive health screenings in 2021 remained below 2019 levels (blood pressure: ARR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.94-0.96]; blood glucose: ARR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.93-0.96]; and cholesterol: ARR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.92-0.94]). Eligible adults were also significantly less likely to receive colorectal cancer screening (ARR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.81-0.94), cervical cancer screening (ARR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.83-0.89), breast cancer screening (ARR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.90-0.97), and prostate cancer screening (ARR, 0.86 [0.78-0.94]) in 2021 vs 2019. Asian adults experienced the largest relative decreases across most preventive screenings, while Black and Hispanic adults experienced large declines in colorectal cancer screening (ARR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.67-0.91) and breast cancer screening (ARR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.75-0.91), respectively. Differences in preventive screening rates across years persisted after additional adjustment for socioeconomic factors (income, employment status, and insurance coverage).Conclusions and relevanceResults of this cohort study suggest that, in the US, wellness visits and preventive health screenings have not returned to prepandemic levels. These findings support the need for public health efforts to increase the use of preventive health screenings among eligible US adults.

Project description:ImportanceThere are racial inequities in health care access and quality in the United States. It is unknown whether such differences for racial and ethnic minority beneficiaries differ between Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare or whether access and quality are better for minority beneficiaries in 1 of the 2 programs.ObjectiveTo compare differences in rates of enrollment, ambulatory care access, and ambulatory care quality by race and ethnicity in Medicare Advantage vs traditional Medicare.Design, setting, and participantsExploratory observational cohort study of a nationally representative sample of 45 833 person-years (26 887 persons) in the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey from 2015 to 2018, comparing differences in program enrollment and measures of access and quality by race and ethnicity.ExposuresMinority race and ethnicity (Black, Hispanic, Native American, or Asian/Pacific Islander) vs White or multiracial; Medicare Advantage vs traditional Medicare enrollment.Main outcomes and measuresSix patient-reported measures of ambulatory care access (whether a beneficiary had a usual source of care in the past year, had a primary care clinician usual source of care, or had a specialist visit) and quality (influenza vaccination, pneumonia vaccination, and colon cancer screening).ResultsThe final sample included 6023 persons (mean age, 68.9 [SD, 12.6] years; 57.3% women) from minority groups and 20 864 persons (mean age, 71.9 [SD, 10.8] years; 54.9% women) from White or multiracial groups, who accounted for 9816 and 36 017 person-years, respectively. Comparing Medicare Advantage vs traditional Medicare among minority beneficiaries, those in Medicare Advantage had significantly better rates of access to a primary care clinician usual source of care (79.1% vs 72.5%; adjusted marginal difference, 4.0%; 95% CI, 1.0%-6.9%), influenza vaccinations (67.3% vs 63.0%; adjusted marginal difference, 5.2%; 95% CI, 1.9%-8.5%), pneumonia vaccinations (70.7% vs 64.6%; adjusted marginal difference, 6.1%; 95% CI, 2.7%-9.4%), and colon cancer screenings (69.4% vs 61.1%; adjusted marginal difference, 7.1%; 95% CI, 3.8%-10.3%). Comparing minority vs White or multiracial beneficiaries across both programs, minority beneficiaries had significantly lower rates of access to a primary care clinician usual source of care (adjusted marginal difference, 4.7%; 95% CI, 2.5%-6.8%), specialist visits (adjusted marginal difference, 10.8%; 95% CI, 8.3%-13.3%), influenza vaccinations (adjusted marginal difference, 4.3%; 95% CI, 1.2%-7.4%), and pneumonia vaccinations (adjusted marginal difference, 6.4%; 95% CI, 3.9%-9.0%). The interaction of race and ethnicity with insurance type was not statistically significant for any of the 6 outcome measures.Conclusions and relevanceIn this exploratory study of Medicare beneficiaries in 2015-2018, enrollment in Medicare Advantage vs traditional Medicare was significantly associated with better outcomes for access and quality among minority beneficiaries; however, minority beneficiaries were significantly more likely to experience worse outcomes for most access and quality measures than White or multiracial beneficiaries in both programs.

Project description:Palliative care improves quality-of-life and extends survival, however, is underutilized among gynecological cancer patients in the United States (U.S.). Our objective was to evaluate associations between healthcare access (HCA) measures and palliative care utilization among U.S. gynecological cancer patients overall and by race/ethnicity. We used 2004-2016 data from the U.S. National Cancer Database and included patients with metastatic (stage III-IV at-diagnosis) ovarian, cervical, and uterine cancer (n = 176,899). Palliative care was defined as non-curative treatment and could include surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, and pain management, or any combination. HCA measures included insurance type, area-level socioeconomic measures, distance-to-care, and cancer treatment facility type. We evaluated associations of HCA measures with palliative care use overall and by race/ethnicity using multivariable logistic regression. Our population was mostly non-Hispanic White (72%), had ovarian cancer (72%), and 24% survived <6 months. Five percent of metastatic gynecological cancer patients utilized palliative care. Compared to those with private insurance, uninsured patients with ovarian (aOR: 1.80,95% CI: 1.53-2.12), and cervical (aOR: 1.45,95% CI: 1.26-1.67) cancer were more likely to use palliative care. Patients with ovarian (aOR: 0.58,95% CI: 0.48-0.70) or cervical cancer (aOR: 0.74,95% CI: 0.60-0.88) who reside >45 miles from their provider were less likely to utilize palliative care than those within <2 miles. Ovarian cancer patients treated at academic/research programs were less likely to utilize palliative care compared to those treated at community cancer programs (aOR: 0.70, 95%CI: 0.58-0.84). Associations between HCA measures and palliative care utilization were largely consistent across U.S. racial-ethnic groups. Insurance type, cancer treatment facility type, and distance-to-care may influence palliative care use among metastatic gynecological cancer patients in the U.S.

Project description:UnlabelledPOLICY POINTS: Racial/ethnic differences in the overuse of care (specifically, unneeded care that does not improve patients' outcomes) have received little scholarly attention. Our systematic review of the literature (59 studies) found that the overuse of care is not invariably associated with race/ethnicity, but when it was, a substantial proportion of studies found greater overuse of care among white patients. The absence of established subject terms in PubMed for the overuse of care or inappropriate care impedes the ability of researchers or policymakers to synthesize prior scientific or policy efforts.ContextThe literature on disparities in health care has examined the contrast between white patients receiving needed care, compared with racial/ethnic minority patients not receiving needed care. Racial/ethnic differences in the overuse of care, that is, unneeded care that does not improve patients' outcomes, have received less attention. We systematically reviewed the literature regarding race/ethnicity and the overuse of care.MethodsWe searched the Medline database for US studies that included at least 2 racial/ethnic groups and that examined the association between race/ethnicity and the overuse of procedures, diagnostic (care) or therapeutic care. In a recent review, we identified studies of overuse by race/ethnicity, and we also examined reference lists of retrieved articles. We then abstracted and evaluated this information, including the population studied, data source, sample size and assembly, type of care, guideline or appropriateness standard, controls for clinical confounding and financing of care, and findings.FindingsWe identified 59 unique studies, of which 11 had a low risk of methodological bias. Studies with multiple outcomes were counted more than once; collectively they assessed 74 different outcomes. Thirty-two studies, 6 with low risks of bias (LRoB), provided evidence that whites received more inappropriate or nonrecommended care than racial/ethnic minorities did. Nine studies (2 LRoB) found evidence of more overuse of care by minorities than by whites. Thirty-three studies (6 LRoB) found no relationship between race/ethnicity and overuse.ConclusionsAlthough the overuse of care is not invariably associated with race/ethnicity, when it was, a substantial proportion of studies found greater overuse of care among white patients. Clinicians and researchers should try to understand how and why race/ethnicity might be associated with overuse and to intervene to reduce it.

Project description:Background and objectivesGeographic variation in stroke rates is well established in the general population, with higher rates in the South than in other areas of the United States. A similar pattern of geographic variation in ischemic strokes has also recently been reported in patients undergoing long-term dialysis, but whether this is also the case for hemorrhagic stroke is unknown.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsMedicare claims from 2000 to 2005 were used to ascertain hemorrhagic stroke events in a large cohort of incident dialysis patients. A Poisson generalized linear mixed model was generated to determine factors associated with stroke and to ascertain state-by-state geographic variability in stroke rates by generating observed-to-expected (O/E) adjusted rate ratios (ARRs) for stroke.ResultsA total of 265,685 Medicare-eligible incident dialysis patients were studied. During a median follow-up of 15.5 months, 2397 (0.9%) patients sustained a hemorrhagic stroke. African Americans (ARR, 1.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.30 to 1.57), Hispanics (ARR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.57 to 2.03), and individuals of other races (ARR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.26 to 1.80) had a significantly higher risk for hemorrhagic stroke compared with whites. In models adjusted for age and sex, four states had O/E ARRs for hemorrhagic stroke that were significantly greater than 1.0 (California, 1.15; Maryland, 1.25; North Carolina, 1.25; Texas, 1.19), while only 1 had an ARR less than 1.0 (Wisconsin, 0.79). However, after adjustment for race and ethnicity, no states had ARRs that varied significantly from 1.0.ConclusionRace and ethnicity, or other factors that covary with these, appear to explain a substantial portion of state-by-state geographic variation in hemorrhagic stroke. This finding suggests that the factors underlying the high rate of hemorrhagic strokes in dialysis patients are likely to be system-wide and that further investigations into regional variations in clinical practices are unlikely to identify large opportunities for preventive interventions for this disorder.

Project description:IntroductionInfant mortality rates are higher in nonmetropolitan areas versus large metropolitan areas. Variation by race/ethnicity and cause of death has not been assessed. Urban-rural infant mortality rate differences were quantified by race/ethnicity and cause of death.MethodsNational Vital Statistics System linked birth/infant death data (2014-2016) were analyzed in 2019 by 3 urban-rural county classifications: large metropolitan, medium/small metropolitan, and nonmetropolitan. Excess infant mortality rates (rate differences) by urban-rural classification were calculated relative to large metropolitan areas overall and for each racial/ethnic group. The number of excess deaths, population attributable fraction, and proportion of excess deaths attributable to underlying causes of death was calculated.ResultsNonmetropolitan areas had the highest excess infant mortality rate overall. Excess infant mortality rates were substantially lower for Hispanic infants than other races/ethnicities. Overall, 7.4% of infant deaths would be prevented if all areas had the infant mortality rate of large metropolitan areas. With more than half of births occurring outside of large metropolitan areas, the population attributable fraction was highest for American Indian/Alaska Natives (20.3%) and whites, non-Hispanic (14.3%). Excess infant mortality rates in both nonmetropolitan and medium/small metropolitan areas were primarily attributable to sudden unexpected infant deaths (42.3% and 31.9%) and congenital anomalies (30.1% and 26.8%). This pattern was consistent for all racial/ethnic groups except black, non-Hispanic infants, for whom preterm-related and sudden unexpected infant deaths accounted for the largest share of excess infant mortality rates.ConclusionsInfant mortality increases with rurality, and excess infant mortality rates are predominantly attributable to sudden unexpected infant deaths and congenital anomalies, with differences by race/ethnicity regarding magnitude and cause of death.