Clinicians' views of an intervention to reduce racial disparities in diabetes outcomes

A Scoping Review of Possible Solutions for Decreasing Socioeconomic Inequalities in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Background

As socioeconomic inequalities are key factors in access and utilization of type 2 diabetes (T2D) services, the purpose of this scoping review was to identify solutions for decreasing socioeconomic inequalities in T2D.

Methods

A scoping review of scientific articles from 2000 and later was conducted using PubMed, Web of Science (WOS), Scopus, Embase, and ProQuest databases. Using the Arksey and O'Malley framework for scoping review, articles were extracted, meticulously read, and thematically analyzed.

Results

A total of 7204 articles were identified from the reviewed databases. After removing duplicate and nonrelevant articles, 117 articles were finally included and analyzed. A number of solutions and passways were extracted from the final articles. Solutions for decreasing socioeconomic inequalities in T2D were categorized into 12 main solutions and 63 passways.

Conclusions

Applying identified solutions in diabetes policies and interventions would be recommended for decreasing socioeconomic inequalities in T2D. Also, the passways could be addressed as entry points to help better implementation of diabetic policies.

Solutions to Address Inequity in Diabetes Technology Use in Type 1 Diabetes: Results from Multidisciplinary Stakeholder Co-creation Workshops

Background: Racial-ethnic inequity in type 1 diabetes technology use is well documented and contributes to disparities in glycemic and long-term outcomes. However, solutions to address technology inequity remain sparse and lack stakeholder input. Methods: We employed user-centered design principles to conduct workshop sessions with multidisciplinary panels of stakeholders, building off of our prior study highlighting patient-identified barriers and proposed solutions. Stakeholders were convened to review our prior findings and co-create interventions to increase technology use among underserved populations with type 1 diabetes. Stakeholders included type 1 diabetes patients who had recently onboarded to technology; endocrinology and primary care physicians; nurses; diabetes educators; psychologists; and community health workers. Sessions were recorded and analyzed iteratively by multiple coders for common themes. Results: We convened 7 virtual 2-h workshops for 32 stakeholders from 11 states in the United States. Patients and providers confirmed prior published studies highlighting patient barriers and generated new ideas by co-creating solutions. Common themes of proposed interventions included (1) prioritizing more equitable systems of offering technology, (2) using visual and hands-on approaches to increase accessibility of technology and education, (3) including peer and family support systems more, and (4) assisting with insurance navigation and social needs. Discussion: Our study furthers the field by providing stakeholder-endorsed intervention ideas that propose feasible changes at the patient, provider, and system levels to reduce inequity in diabetes technology use in type 1 diabetes. Multidisciplinary stakeholder engagement in disparities research offers unique insight that is impactful and acceptable to the target population.

Association of Provider Perspectives on Race and Racial Health Care Disparities with Patient Perceptions of Care and Health Outcomes

Purpose: Research suggests that providers contribute to racial disparities in health outcomes. Identifying modifiable provider perspectives that are associated with decreased racial disparities will help in the design of effective educational interventions for providers. Methods: This cross-sectional study investigated the association between primary care provider (PCP) perspectives on race and racial disparities with patient outcomes. Results: Study participants included 40 PCPs (70% White, 30% racial minority) caring for 55 patients (45% White, 55% Black) with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Associations of provider perspectives on race and racial disparities with patient variables (Interpersonal Processes of Care [IPC] Survey, which measures patient's ratings of their provider's interpersonal skills; medication adherence; glycemic control) were measured using Spearman correlation coefficients. Results suggest that Black patients of providers who reported greater skill in caring for Black patients had more positive perceptions of care in three of four IPC subdomains (Spearman correlation coefficients of -0.43, 0.44, 0.46, all with p<0.05); however, Black patients of providers who believe that racial disparities are highly prevalent had more negative perceptions of care in three of four IPC subdomains (Spearman correlation coefficients of 0.38, -0.53, -0.51, all with p<0.05). These same provider characteristics had no correlation with outcomes of medication adherence and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) or among White patients. Conclusion: Findings suggest that Black patients of providers who felt better equipped to take care of Black patients had a better experience. Therefore, educational interventions for providers may be most effective if they focus on skill development rather than increasing awareness about racial disparities alone.

Type 2 diabetes patients' and providers' differing perspectives on medication nonadherence: a qualitative meta-synthesis

BACKGROUND

Poor adherence to medication regimens increases adverse outcomes for patients with Type 2 diabetes. Improving medication adherence is a growing priority for clinicians and health care systems. We examine the differences between patient and provider understandings of barriers to medication adherence for Type 2 diabetes patients.

METHODS

We searched systematically for empirical qualitative studies on the topic of barriers to medication adherence among Type 2 diabetes patients published between 2002-2013; 86 empirical qualitative studies qualified for inclusion. Following qualitative meta-synthesis methods, we coded and analyzed thematically the findings from studies, integrating and comparing findings across studies to yield a synthetic interpretation and new insights from this body of research.

RESULTS

We identify 7 categories of barriers: (1) emotional experiences as positive and negative motivators to adherence, (2) intentional non-compliance, (3) patient-provider relationship and communication, (4) information and knowledge, (5) medication administration, (6) social and cultural beliefs, and (7) financial issues. Patients and providers express different understandings of what patients require to improve adherence. Health beliefs, life context and lay understandings all inform patients' accounts. They describe barriers in terms of difficulties adapting medication regimens to their lifestyles and daily routines. In contrast, providers' understandings of patients poor medication adherence behaviors focus on patients' presumed needs for more information about the physiological and biomedical aspect of diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights key discrepancies between patients' and providers' understandings of barriers to medication adherence. These misunderstandings span the many cultural and care contexts represented by 86 qualitative studies. Counseling and interventions aimed at improving medication adherence among Type 2 diabetes might become more effective through better integration of the patient's perspective and values concerning adherence difficulties and solutions.

Racial/ethnic disparities in prevalence and care of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

As of 2012, nearly 10% of Americans had diabetes mellitus. People with diabetes are at approximately double the risk of premature death compared with those in the same age groups without the condition. While the prevalence of diabetes has risen across all racial/ethnic groups over the past 30 years, rates are higher in minority populations. The objective of this review article is to evaluate the prevalence of diabetes and disease-related comorbidities as well as the primary endpoints of clinical studies assessing glucose-lowering treatments in African Americans, Hispanics, and Asians.

METHODS

As part of our examination of this topic, we reviewed epidemiologic and outcome publications. Additionally, we performed a comprehensive literature search of clinical trials that evaluated glucose-lowering drugs in racial minority populations. For race/ethnicity, we used the terms African American, African, Hispanic, and Asian. We searched PubMed for clinical trial results from 1996 to 2015 using these terms by drug class and specific drug. Search results were filtered qualitatively.

RESULTS

Overall, the majority of publications that fit our search criteria pertained to native Asian patient populations (i.e., Asian patients in Asian countries). Sulfonylureas; the α-glucosidase inhibitor, miglitol; the biguanide, metformin; and the thiazolidinedione, rosiglitazone have been evaluated in African American and Hispanic populations, as well as in Asians. The literature on other glucose-lowering drugs in non-white races/ethnicities is more limited.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical data are needed for guiding diabetes treatment among racial minority populations. A multi-faceted approach, including vigilant screening in at-risk populations, aggressive treatment, and culturally sensitive patient education, could help reduce the burden of diabetes on minority populations. To ensure optimal outcomes, educational programs that integrate culturally relevant approaches should highlight the importance of risk-factor control in minority patients.

Demographic Disparities Among Medicare Beneficiaries with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in 2011: Diabetes Prevalence, Comorbidities, and Hypoglycemia Events

This study describes demographic characteristics, comorbidities, and hypoglycemia events in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) identified using 2011 Medicare 5% Standard Analytical Files. Among 1,913,477 Medicare beneficiaries, 367,602 (19.2%) had T2DM. T2DM prevalence increased with age and was higher in blacks (26.4%) and Hispanics (25.5%) than in whites (18.0%); and in Medicare/Medicaid dual-eligible versus non-dual-eligible patients (28.0% vs 17.2%, respectively). Compared with whites, diagnosed hypertension and diabetic retinopathy were more common in blacks and Hispanics, and lipid metabolism disorders and atrial fibrillation were less common. Hypoglycemia requiring health care services was more common in blacks (4.7%) and Hispanics (3.6%) compared with whites (2.9%). T2DM, related comorbidities, and hypoglycemia are burdensome to the Medicare population. Differences in these endpoints were observed based on race/ethnicity, age, and dual-eligible status, highlighting the importance of demographic factors when determining T2DM management strategies.

Quality of care and racial disparities in medicare among potential ACOs

BACKGROUND

The Medicare Accountable Care Organization (ACO) programs encourage integration of providers into large groups and reward provider groups for improving quality, but not explicitly for reducing health care disparities. Larger group size and better overall quality may or may not be associated with smaller disparities.

OBJECTIVE

To examine differences in patient characteristics between provider groups sufficiently large to participate in ACO programs and smaller groups; the association between group size and racial disparities in quality; and the association between quality and disparities among larger groups.

DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS

Using 2009 Medicare claims for 3.1 million beneficiaries with cardiovascular disease or diabetes and linked data on provider groups, we compared racial differences in quality by provider group size, adjusting for patient characteristics. Among larger groups, we used multilevel models to estimate correlations between group performance on quality measures for white beneficiaries and black-white disparities within groups.

MAIN MEASURES

Four process measures of quality, hospitalization for ambulatory care-sensitive conditions (ACSCs) related to cardiovascular disease or diabetes, and hospitalization for any ACSC.

KEY RESULTS

Beneficiaries served by larger groups were more likely to be white and live in areas with less poverty and more education. Larger group size was associated with smaller disparities in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol testing and retinal exams, but not in other process measures or hospitalization for ACSCs. Among larger groups, better quality for white beneficiaries in one measure (hospitalization for ACSCs related to cardiovascular disease or diabetes) was correlated with smaller racial disparities (r = 0.28; P = 0.02), but quality was not correlated with disparities in other measures.

CONCLUSIONS

Larger provider group size and better performance on quality measures were not consistently associated with smaller racial disparities in care for Medicare beneficiaries with cardiovascular disease or diabetes. ACO incentives rewarding better quality for minority groups and payment arrangements supporting ACO development in disadvantaged communities may be required for ACOs to promote greater equity in care.

Making equity a value in value-based health care

Equity in health and health care in America continues to be a goal unmet. Certain demographic groups in the United States-including racial and ethnic minorities and individuals with lower socioeconomic status-have poorer health outcomes across a wide array of diseases, and have higher all-cause mortality. Yet despite growing understanding of how social-, structural-, and individual-level factors maintain and create inequities, solutions to reduce or eliminate them have been elusive. In this article, the authors envision how disparities-related provisions in the Affordable Care Act and other recent legislation could be linked with new value-based health care requirements and payment models to create incentives for narrowing health care disparities and move the nation toward equity.Specifically, the authors explore how recent legislative actions regarding payment reform, health information technology, community health needs assessments, and expanding health equity research could be woven together to build an evidence base for solutions to health care inequities. Although policy interventions at the clinical and payer levels alone will not eliminate disparities, given the significant role the social determinants of health play in the etiology and maintenance of inequity, such policies can allow the health care system to better identify and leverage community assets; provide high-quality, more equitable care; and demonstrate that equity is a value in health.

How health care organizations are using data on patients' race and ethnicity to improve quality of care

CONTEXT

Racial and ethnic disparities in the quality of health care are well documented in the U.S. health care system. Reducing these disparities requires action by health care organizations. Collecting accurate data from patients about their race and ethnicity is an essential first step for health care organizations to take such action, but these data are not systematically collected and used for quality improvement purposes in the United States. This study explores the challenges encountered by health care organizations that attempted to collect and use these data to reduce disparities.

METHODS

Purposive sampling was used to identify eight health care organizations that collected race and ethnicity data to measure and reduce disparities in the quality and outcomes of health care. Staff, including senior managers and data analysts, were interviewed at each site, using a semi-structured interview format about the following themes: the challenges of collecting and collating accurate data from patients, how organizations defined a disparity and analyzed data, and the impact and uses of their findings.

FINDINGS

To collect accurate self-reported data on race and ethnicity from patients, most organizations had upgraded or modified their IT systems to capture data and trained staff to collect and input these data from patients. By stratifying nationally validated indicators of quality for hospitals and ambulatory care by race and ethnicity, most organizations had then used these data to identify disparities in the quality of care. In this process, organizations were taking different approaches to defining and measuring disparities. Through these various methods, all organizations had found some disparities, and some had invested in interventions designed to address them, such as extra staff, extended hours, or services in new locations.

CONCLUSION

If policymakers wish to hold health care organizations accountable for disparities in the quality of the care they deliver, common standards will be needed for organizations' data measurement, analysis, and use to guide systematic analysis and robust investment in potential solutions to reduce and eliminate disparities.