Dataset Information

Systematic review and meta-analysis of patient race/ethnicity, socioeconomics, and quality for adult type 2 diabetes.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To review the evidence of the association between performance in eight indicators of diabetes care and a patient's race/ethnicity and socioeconomic characteristics.

Data source

Studies of adult patients with type 2 diabetes in MEDLINE published between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2018.

Study design

Systematic review and meta-analysis of regression-based studies including race/ethnicity and income or education as explanatory variables. Meta-analysis was used to quantify differences in performance associated with patient race/ethnicity or socioeconomic characteristics. The systematic review was used to identify potential mechanisms of disparities.

Data collection

Two coauthors separately conducted abstract screening, study exclusions, data extraction, and scoring of retained studies. Estimates in retained studies were extracted and, where applicable, were standardized and converted to odds ratios and standard errors.

Principal findings

Performance in intermediate outcomes and process measures frequently exhibited differences by race/ethnicity even after adjustment for socioeconomic, lifestyle, and health factors. Meta-analyses showed black patients had lower odds of HbA1c and blood pressure (BP) control (OR range: 0.67-0.68, P < .05) but higher odds of receiving eye or foot examination (OR range: 1.22-1.47, P < .05) relative to white patients. A high school degree or more was associated with higher odds of HbA1c control and receipt of eye examinations compared to patients without a degree. Meta-analyses of income included a handful of studies and were inconsistently associated with diabetes care performance. Differences in diabetes performance appear to be related to access-related factors such as uninsurance or lacking a usual source of care; food insecurity and trade-offs at very low incomes; and lower adherence among younger and healthier diabetes patients.

Conclusions

Patient race/ethnicity and education were associated with differences in diabetes quality measures. Depending on the approach used to rate providers, not adjusting for these patient characteristics may penalize or reward providers based on the populations they serve.

SUBMITTER: Lee W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7518886 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe consistency of cardiovascular risk reduction by antidiabetes medications across racial and ethnic groups remains unclear. The aim of this study was to analyze racial/ethnic patterns in the results of cardiovascular outcomes trials of antidiabetes medications in people with type 2 diabetes.MethodPubMed and Cochrane library databases were searched from the inception dates to December 2020. Cardiovascular outcome trials in type 2 diabetes that randomized participants to antidiabetes medication or control treatment and reported results by race/ethnic groups or region were included.ResultsA total of 19 studies were included in this meta-analysis. Among White participants, treatment with antidiabetes medications significantly decreased the risk of composite cardiovascular outcomes when compared with placebo treatment (OR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.83-0.94, p < 0.05). Among Asian participants, antidiabetes medications also significantly decreased the risk of composite cardiovascular outcomes when compared with control treatment (OR = 0.80, 95% CI 0.74-0.86, p < 0.05). A similar pattern was found when analyzing the effects of antidiabetes medications vs. control treatment in other racial/ethnic groups comprising mostly Hispanics and Pacific Islanders (OR = 0.87, 95% CI 0.78-0.98, p < 0.05). However, among Black participants, treatment with antidiabetes medications resulted in nominal but non-significant decreases in the composite cardiovascular outcomes when compared with control treatment (OR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.62-1.14, p = 0.26).ConclusionsThe present meta-analysis showed cardiovascular safety of antidiabetes medications in people with type 2 diabetes from all racial/ethnic groups studied; however, significant composite cardiovascular risk reductions were demonstrated only in White and Asian participants. To determine whether antidiabetes drugs confer consistent cardiovascular benefits in Black and other racial/ethnic participants requires more investigations in the future.

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: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:Patient activation interventions (PAIs) engage patients in care by promoting increased knowledge, confidence, and/or skills for disease self-management. However, little is known about the impact of these interventions on a wide range of outcomes for adults with type 2 diabetes (DM2), or which of these interventions, if any, have the greatest impact on glycemic control.Electronic databases were searched from inception through November 2011. Of 16,290 citations, two independent reviewers identified 138 randomized trials comparing PAIs to usual care/control groups in adults with DM2 that reported intermediate or long-term outcomes or harms. For meta-analyses of continuous outcomes, we used a random-effects model to derive pooled weighted mean differences (WMD). For all-cause mortality, we calculated the pooled odds ratio (OR) using Peto's method. We assessed statistical heterogeneity using the I (2) statistic and conducted meta-regression using a random-effects model when I (2)?>?50 %. A priori meta-regression primary variables included: intervention strategies, intervention leader, baseline outcome value, quality, and study duration.PAIs modestly reduced intermediate outcomes [A1c: WMD 0.37 %, CI 0.28-0.45 %, I (2) 83 %; SBP: WMD 2.2 mmHg, CI 1.0-3.5 mmHg, I (2) 72 %; body weight: WMD 2.3 lbs, CI 1.3-3.2 lbs, I (2) 64 %; and LDL-c: WMD 4.2 mg/dL, CI 1.5-6.9 mg/dL, I (2) 64 %]. The evidence was moderate for A1c, low/very low for other intermediate outcomes, low for long-term mortality and very low for complications. Interventions had no effect on hypoglycemia (evidence: low) or short-term mortality (evidence: moderate). Higher baseline A1c, pharmacist-led interventions, and longer follow-up were associated with larger A1c improvements. No intervention strategy outperformed any other in adjusted meta-regression.PAIs modestly improve A1c in adults with DM2 without increasing short-term mortality. These results support integration of these interventions into primary care for adults with uncontrolled glycemia, and provide evidence to insurers who do not yet cover these programs.

Project description:Objective We determine whether racial concordance between postpartum patients and obstetric providers (dyads) impacts the perception of quality of care among people undergoing intrapartum obstetrical procedures.Study design This is a prospective cohort study of postpartum people who underwent operative vaginal or cesarean deliveries in the second stage of labor. Participants were asked to identify the race of their primary provider and complete the Interpersonal Processes of Care (IPC) survey, which assesses communication, patient-centered decision-making, and interpersonal style. The association of participant-identified patient-provider racial concordance with IPC scores was determined. The primary outcome was the IPC subdomain related to discrimination, and secondary outcomes included other IPC subdomains and IPC results by participant racial identity (Black, LatinX vs. White). Sociodemographic and biomedical data were extracted from the medical record. Bivariable analyses were performed.Results Of 168 patients who were approached, 107 (63.6%) agreed to participate and 87 (81.3%) completed the survey. The majority (n=49) identified a racially discordant provider. Participants in racially concordant dyads were more likely to be older, White, use English as a primary language, complete a higher degree of education, and have a higher household income when compared with racially discordant dyads. Intrapartum outcomes were not significantly different between groups. Median IPC subtest scores were not significantly different between groups or between racial/ethnic identities.Conclusion There were no significant differences in perceptions of IPC between racially concordant versus discordant dyads. However, there is an ongoing need to further clarify measures of quality of care in high-acuity obstetrical situations to remediate ongoing racial and ethnic disparities in adverse health outcomes.Key points· Racial concordance between patient and clinician has been associated with improved quality of care.. · There are limited data on racial concordance and perceptions of operative obstetrical care (e.g., operative vaginal delivery).. · Racial concordance was not associated with differences in patient-perceived quality of care associated with operative obstetrics..