Dataset Information

Pharmaceutical Side Effects and Mental Health Paradoxes among Racial-Ethnic Minorities.

ABSTRACT: Sociologists have long struggled to explain the minority mental health paradox: that racial-ethnic minorities often report better mental health than non-Hispanic whites despite social environments that seem less conducive to well-being. Using data from the 2008-2013 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), this study provides a partial explanation for the paradox rooted in a very different disparity. Evidence from MEPS indicates that non-Hispanic whites consume more pharmaceuticals than racial-ethnic minorities for a wide variety of medical conditions. Moreover, non-Hispanic whites consume more pharmaceuticals that although effective in treating their focal indication, include depression or suicide as a side effect. In models that adjust for the use of such medications, the minority advantage in significant distress is reduced, in some instances to statistical nonsignificance. Although a significant black and Hispanic advantage in a continuous measure of distress remains, the magnitude of the difference is reduced considerably. The relationship between the use of medications with suicide as a side effect and significant distress is especially large, exceeding, for instance, the relationship between poverty and significant distress. For some minority groups, the less frequent use of such medications is driven by better health (as in the case of Asians), whereas for others, it reflects a treatment disparity (as in the case of blacks), although the consequences for the mental health paradox are the same. The implications of the results are discussed, especially with respect to the neglect of psychological side effects in the treatment of physical disease as well as the problem of multiple morbidities.

SUBMITTER: Schnittker J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8215684 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIt is widely claimed that racial and ethnic minorities, especially in the US, are less willing than non-minority individuals to participate in health research. Yet, there is a paucity of empirical data to substantiate this claim.Methods and findingsWe performed a comprehensive literature search to identify all published health research studies that report consent rates by race or ethnicity. We found 20 health research studies that reported consent rates by race or ethnicity. These 20 studies reported the enrollment decisions of over 70,000 individuals for a broad range of research, from interviews to drug treatment to surgical trials. Eighteen of the twenty studies were single-site studies conducted exclusively in the US or multi-site studies where the majority of sites (i.e., at least 2/3) were in the US. Of the remaining two studies, the Concorde study was conducted at 74 sites in the United Kingdom, Ireland, and France, while the Delta study was conducted at 152 sites in Europe and 23 sites in Australia and New Zealand. For the three interview or non-intervention studies, African-Americans had a nonsignificantly lower overall consent rate than non-Hispanic whites (82.2% versus 83.5%; odds ratio [OR] = 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84-1.02). For these same three studies, Hispanics had a nonsignificantly higher overall consent rate than non-Hispanic whites (86.1% versus 83.5%; OR = 1.37; 95% CI 0.94-1.98). For the ten clinical intervention studies, African-Americans' overall consent rate was nonsignificantly higher than that of non-Hispanic whites (45.3% versus 41.8%; OR = 1.06; 95% CI 0.78-1.45). For these same ten studies, Hispanics had a statistically significant higher overall consent rate than non-Hispanic whites (55.9% versus 41.8%; OR = 1.33; 95% CI 1.08-1.65). For the seven surgery trials, which report all minority groups together, minorities as a group had a nonsignificantly higher overall consent rate than non-Hispanic whites (65.8% versus 47.8%; OR = 1.26; 95% CI 0.89-1.77). Given the preponderance of US sites, the vast majority of these individuals from minority groups were African-Americans or Hispanics from the US.ConclusionsWe found very small differences in the willingness of minorities, most of whom were African-Americans and Hispanics in the US, to participate in health research compared to non-Hispanic whites. These findings, based on the research enrollment decisions of over 70,000 individuals, the vast majority from the US, suggest that racial and ethnic minorities in the US are as willing as non-Hispanic whites to participate in health research. Hence, efforts to increase minority participation in health research should focus on ensuring access to health research for all groups, rather than changing minority attitudes.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Racism has been linked with poor health in studies in the United States. Little is known about prospective associations between racial discrimination and health outcomes in the United Kingdom (UK). METHODS:Data were from 4883 ethnic minority (i.e. non-white) participants in the UK Household Longitudinal Study. Perceived discrimination in the last 12?months on the basis of ethnicity or nationality was reported in 2009/10. Psychological distress, mental functioning, life satisfaction, self-rated health, physical functioning and reports of limiting longstanding illness were assessed in 2009/10 and 2011/12. Linear and logistic regression analyses adjusted for age, sex, income, education and ethnicity. Prospective analyses also adjusted for baseline status on the outcome being evaluated. RESULTS:Racial discrimination was reported by 998 (20.4%) of the sample. Cross-sectionally, those who reported racial discrimination had a greater likelihood on average of limiting longstanding illness (odds ratio (OR)?=?1.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.49; 2.13) and fair/poor self-rated health (OR?=?1.50; 95% CI 1.24; 1.82) than those who did not report racial discrimination. Racial discrimination was associated with greater psychological distress (B?=?1.11, 95% CI 0.88; 1.34), poorer mental functioning (B?=?-?3.61; 95% CI -4.29; -?2.93), poorer physical functioning (B?=?-?0.86; 95% CI -1.50; -?0.27), and lower life satisfaction (B?=?-?0.40, 95% CI -0.52; -?0.27). Prospectively, those who reported racial discrimination had a greater likelihood on average of limiting longstanding illness (OR?=?1.31, 95% CI 1.01; 1.69) and fair/poor self-rated health (OR?=?1.30; 95% CI 1.00; 1.69), than those who did not report racial discrimination. Racial discrimination was associated increased psychological distress (B?=?0.52, 95% CI 0.20; 0.85) and poorer mental functioning (B?=?-?1.77; 95% CI -2.70; -?0.83) over two-year follow-up, adjusting for baseline scores. CONCLUSIONS:UK adults belonging to ethnic minority groups who perceive racial discrimination experience poorer mental and physical health than those who do not. These results highlight the need for effective interventions to combat racial discrimination in order to reduce inequalities in health.

Project description:BackgroundRacial/ethnic minorities in the USA exhibit reduced health literacy (HL) proficiency, leading to increased health disparities. It is unclear how the effect of birth status (immigrant/US-born) affects HL proficiency among racial/ethnic minorities.ObjectiveTo identify the direct, indirect, and total effects of birth status on HL proficiency among a nationally representative population of racial/ethnic minority adults in the USA.DesignA cross-sectional study of 2019 data from the Medial Expenditure Panel Survey.ParticipantsParticipants aged 18 or older reporting as racial/ethnic minorities (Black, Asian, or Hispanic) with non-missing data.Main measuresWe predicted HL proficiency for each participant using a previously published model. Path analysis was used to estimate the direct, indirect, and total effects of birth status on HL proficiency, accounting for several other covariates. Prevalence ratios were estimated using adjusted Poisson regression to evaluate differences in the "Below Basic" HL category.Key resultsAn estimated weighted 81,092,505 participants were included (57.5% US-born, 42.5% immigrant). More racial/ethnic minority immigrant participants fell into the lowest category of HL proficiency, "Below Basic" (14.3% vs 5.5%, p < 0.05). Results of the path analysis indicated a significant, negative direct effect of birth status on HL proficiency (standardized coefficient = - 0.24, SE = 0.01, 95%CI: - 0.26, - 0.23) in addition to an indirect effect mediated through insurance status, health-system resource use, and English proficiency. The total effect of birth status on HL proficiency was found to be - 0.29. The immigrant participant group had 81% higher prevalence of falling into the "Below Basic" HL category compared to US-born participants (prevalence ratio = 1.81, 95%CI: 1.52, 2.16).ConclusionsImmigrant status has a strong, negative, direct effect on HL proficiency among racial/ethnic minorities in the USA. This may be a result of barriers that prevent equitable access to resources that improve proper HL proficiency. US policymakers may consider several methods to reduce this disparity at the health-system-, provider-, and patient-levels.

Dataset Information

Pharmaceutical Side Effects and Mental Health Paradoxes among Racial-Ethnic Minorities.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets