Use of smoking cessation interventions and aspirin for secondary prevention: are there racial disparities?

Association between race and receipt of counselling or medication for smoking cessation in primary care

BACKGROUND

Previous evidence of race disparities in smoking cessation treatment has been limited to mostly survey studies which increase the potential for recall bias. We examined if African American versus white patients in primary care are less likely to receive any treatment or if race disparities are specific to the type of treatment offered using data pulled from a large electronic health record system.

METHODS

Medical record data from 3510 white and 2707 African American patients were available from primary care encounters between 2008 and 2015 and was used to define smoking status, cessation treatments (counselling and medication), and covariates. The association between race and type of smoking cessation treatment offered was measured by logistic regression models before and after adjusting for covariates.

RESULTS

Smoking cessation counselling was offered to 9.3% of African American and 7.8% of white patients, and a prescription for smoking cessation medication was offered to 12.3% of African American and 16.4% of white patients. After adjusting for covariates in logistic regression models, whites were significantly less likely than African American patients to receive smoking cessation counselling [odds ratio (OR) = 0.81; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.65-0.99] and were significantly more likely to receive a prescription for a smoking cessation medication (OR = 1.23; 95% CI = 1.03-1.47).

CONCLUSIONS

Less than 20% of smokers received any type of therapy to assist in smoking cessation. We observed a race disparity in type of smoking cessation therapy provided to white and African American primary care patients. Further research is needed to increase treatment rates and eliminate disparities.

Preventing recurrence of thromboembolic events through coordinated treatment in the District of Columbia

RATIONALE

PROTECT DC examines whether stroke navigators can improve cardiovascular risk factors in urban underserved individuals newly hospitalized for stroke or ischemic attack. Within one-year of hospital discharge, up to one-third of patients no longer adhere to secondary prevention behaviors. Adherence rates are lower in minority-underserved groups, contributing to health disparities. In-hospital programs increase use of stroke prevention therapies but may not be as successful in underserved individuals. In these groups, low literacy, limited healthcare access, and sparse community resources may reduce adherence. Lay community health workers (navigators) improve adherence in other illnesses through education and assisting in overcoming barriers to achieving desired health behaviors and obtaining needed healthcare services.

AIMS AND DESIGN

PROTECT DC is a Phase II, single-blind, randomized, controlled trial comparing in-hospital education plus stroke navigators to usual care. Atherogenic ischemic stroke and transient ischemic attack survivors are recruited from Washington, DC hospitals. Navigators meet with participants during the index hospitalization, perform home visits, and meet by phone. They focus on stroke education, medication compliance, and overcoming practical barriers to adherence. The interventions are driven by the theories of reasoned action and planned behavior.

STUDY OUTCOMES

The primary dependent measure is a summary score of four objective measures of stroke risk factor control: systolic blood pressure, low-density lipoprotein, hemoglobin Hb A1C, and antiplatelet agent pill counts. Secondary outcomes include stroke knowledge, exercise, dietary modification, and smoking cessation.

CONCLUSION

PROTECT DC will determine whether a Phase III trial of stroke navigation for urban underserved individuals to improve adherence to secondary stroke prevention behaviors is warranted.

Racial-ethnic disparities in stroke care: the American experience: a statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association

PURPOSE

Our goal is to describe the effect of race and ethnicity on stroke epidemiology, personal beliefs, access to care, response to treatment, and participation in clinical research. In addition, we seek to determine the state of knowledge on the main factors that may explain disparities in stroke care, with the goal of identifying gaps in knowledge to guide future research. The intended audience includes physicians, nurses, other healthcare professionals, and policy makers.

METHODS

Members of the writing group were appointed by the American Heart Association Stroke Council Scientific Statement Oversight Committee and represent different areas of expertise in relation to racial-ethnic disparities in stroke care. The writing group reviewed the relevant literature, with an emphasis on reports published since 1972. The statement was approved by the writing group; the statement underwent peer review, then was approved by the American Heart Association Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee.

RESULTS

There are limitations in the definitions of racial and ethnic categories currently in use. For the purpose of this statement, we used the racial categories defined by the US federal government: white, black or African American, Asian, American Indian/Alaskan Native, and Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander. There are 2 ethnic categories: people of Hispanic/Latino origin or not of Hispanic/Latino origin. There are differences in the distribution of the burden of risk factors, stroke incidence and prevalence, and stroke mortality among different racial and ethnic groups. In addition, there are disparities in stroke care between minority groups compared with whites. These disparities include lack of awareness of stroke symptoms and signs and lack of knowledge about the need for urgent treatment and the causal role of risk factors. There are also differences in attitudes, beliefs, and compliance among minorities compared with whites. Differences in socioeconomic status and insurance coverage, mistrust of the healthcare system, the relatively limited number of providers who are members of minority groups, and system limitations may contribute to disparities in access to or quality of care, which in turn might result in different rates of stroke morbidity and mortality. Cultural and language barriers probably also contribute to some of these disparities. Minorities use emergency medical services systems less, are often delayed in arriving at the emergency department, have longer waiting times in the emergency department, and are less likely to receive thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke. Although unmeasured factors may play a role in these delays, the presence of bias in the delivery of care cannot be excluded. Minorities have equal access to rehabilitation services, although they experience longer stays and have poorer functional status than whites. Minorities are inadequately treated with both primary and secondary stroke prevention strategies compared with whites. Sparse data exist on racial-ethnic disparities in access to surgical care after intracerebral hemorrhage and subarachnoid hemorrhage. Participation of minorities in clinical research is limited. Barriers to participation in clinical research include beliefs, lack of trust, and limited awareness. Race is a contentious topic in biomedical research because race is not proven to be a surrogate for genetic constitution.

CONCLUSIONS

There are limitations in the current definitions of race and ethnicity. Nevertheless, racial and ethnic disparities in stroke exist and include differences in the biological determinants of disease and disparities throughout the continuum of care, including access to and quality of care. Access to and participation in research is also limited among minority groups. Acknowledging the presence of disparities and understanding the factors that contribute to them are necessary first steps. More research is required to understand these differences and find solutions.

Identification of patients at risk of ischemic events for long-term secondary prevention

PURPOSE

To review the identification of patients at risk of secondary ischemic events, discuss the therapies available for their medical management, and identify the role of the nurse practitioner (NP) in their primary and long-term care.

DATA SOURCES

ACC/AHA 2007 guidelines for the management of patients with unstable angina and non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction, ACC/AHA 2005 guidelines for the management of patients with peripheral arterial disease, AHA/ASA 2006 guidelines for patients with ischemic stroke, AHA/ACC 2006 guidelines update for patients with coronary and other atherosclerotic vascular disease, and selected clinical articles identified through PubMed.

CONCLUSIONS

Preventive therapy in patients with atherothrombotic vascular disease is critical for reducing the risk of recurrent events. Almost all patients with atherosclerotic disease will benefit from general lifestyle modifications, and most will also benefit from appropriate pharmacotherapies targeting dyslipidemia, diabetes, hypertension, and platelet function. However, evidence suggests that secondary prevention strategies may not be utilized effectively.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Increased awareness and implementation of clinical practice guidelines can reduce the risk of recurrent atherothrombotic events. NPs in primary care settings or in long-term care facilities are well placed to determine whether patients are receiving appropriate preventive care and to implement improvements in their management.

Racial and ethnic disparities in the VA health care system: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To better understand the causes of racial disparities in health care, we reviewed and synthesized existing evidence related to disparities in the "equal access" Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed and synthesized evidence from studies comparing health care utilization and quality by race within the VA.

RESULTS

Racial disparities in the VA exist across a wide range of clinical areas and service types. Disparities appear most prevalent for medication adherence and surgery and other invasive procedures, processes that are likely to be affected by the quantity and quality of patient-provider communication, shared decision making, and patient participation. Studies indicate a variety of likely root causes of disparities including: racial differences in patients' medical knowledge and information sources, trust and skepticism, levels of participation in health care interactions and decisions, and social support and resources; clinician judgment/bias; the racial/cultural milieu of health care settings; and differences in the quality of care at facilities attended by different racial groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Existing evidence from the VA indicates several promising targets for interventions to reduce racial disparities in the quality of health care.