Dataset Information

Alternative Pathways for Hearing Care May Address Disparities in Access.

ABSTRACT: Background/Objectives: Low-uptake of hearing aids among older adults has long dogged the hearing care system in the U.S. and other countries. The introduction of over-the-counter hearing aids is set to disrupt the predominantly high-cost, specialty clinic-based delivery model of hearing care with the hope of increasing accessibility and affordability of hearing care. However, the current model of hearing care delivery may not be reaching everyone with hearing loss who have yet to use hearing aids. In this study, we examine the group of people who do not use hearing aids and describe their characteristics and health care utilization patterns. We also consider what other healthcare pathways may be utilized to increase access to hearing treatment. Design: Cross-sectional, the 2017 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey. Setting: Non-institutionalized adults enrolled in Medicare, the U.S. public health insurance program for older adults (65 years and older) and those with qualifying medical conditions and disabilities. Participants: A nationally representative sample of 7,361 Medicare beneficiaries with self-reported trouble hearing and/or hearing aid use. Measurements: Survey-weighted proportions described the population characteristics and health care utilization of those with hearing loss by hearing aid use, and the characteristics of those with untreated hearing loss by health care service type utilized. Results: Women, racial/ethnic minorities, and low-income Medicare beneficiaries with self-reported hearing trouble were less likely to report using hearing aids than their peers. Among those who do not use hearing aids, the most commonly used health care services were obtaining prescription drugs (64%) and seeing a medical provider (50%). Only 20% did not access either service in the past year. These individuals were more likely to be young and to have higher educational attainment and income. Conclusion: Alternative models of care delivered through pharmacies and general medical practices may facilitate access to currently underserved populations as they are particularly high touch-points for Medicare beneficiaries with untreated hearing trouble. As care needs will vary across a spectrum of hearing loss, alternative models of hearing care should look to complement not substitute for existing access pathways to hearing care.

SUBMITTER: Willink A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8655113 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe use of artificial intelligence (AI) in clinical medicine risks perpetuating existing bias in care, such as disparities in access to postinjury rehabilitation services.ObjectiveTo leverage a novel, interpretable AI-based technology to uncover racial disparities in access to postinjury rehabilitation care and create an AI-based prescriptive tool to address these disparities.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study used data from the 2010-2016 American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program database for Black and White patients with a penetrating mechanism of injury. An interpretable AI methodology called optimal classification trees (OCTs) was applied in an 80:20 derivation/validation split to predict discharge disposition (home vs postacute care [PAC]). The interpretable nature of OCTs allowed for examination of the AI logic to identify racial disparities. A prescriptive mixed-integer optimization model using age, injury, and gender data was allowed to "fairness-flip" the recommended discharge destination for a subset of patients while minimizing the ratio of imbalance between Black and White patients. Three OCTs were developed to predict discharge disposition: the first 2 trees used unadjusted data (one without and one with the race variable), and the third tree used fairness-adjusted data.Main outcomes and measuresDisparities and the discriminative performance (C statistic) were compared among fairness-adjusted and unadjusted OCTs.ResultsA total of 52 468 patients were included; the median (IQR) age was 29 (22-40) years, 46 189 patients (88.0%) were male, 31 470 (60.0%) were Black, and 20 998 (40.0%) were White. A total of 3800 Black patients (12.1%) were discharged to PAC, compared with 4504 White patients (21.5%; P < .001). Examining the AI logic uncovered significant disparities in PAC discharge destination access, with race playing the second most important role. The prescriptive fairness adjustment recommended flipping the discharge destination of 4.5% of the patients, with the performance of the adjusted model increasing from a C statistic of 0.79 to 0.87. After fairness adjustment, disparities disappeared, and a similar percentage of Black and White patients (15.8% vs 15.8%; P = .87) had a recommended discharge to PAC.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, we developed an accurate, machine learning-based, fairness-adjusted model that can identify barriers to discharge to postacute care. Instead of accidentally encoding bias, interpretable AI methodologies are powerful tools to diagnose and remedy system-related bias in care, such as disparities in access to postinjury rehabilitation care.

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.

Dataset Information

Alternative Pathways for Hearing Care May Address Disparities in Access.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets