Time to Move beyond Proving Disparities Exist and Begin Eliminating Them

Disparities in Access to, Use of, and Quality of Rehabilitation Following Stroke in the United States: A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVES

To summarize current reports in the literature on disparities in rehabilitation following stroke; identify gaps in our understanding of rehabilitation disparities; and make recommendations for future research.

DATA SOURCES

A Health Sciences librarian developed a search string based on an a priori protocol and searched MEDLINE (Ovid) Embase (Elsevier), and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL, EBSCO).

STUDY SELECTION

A two-step screening process of titles and abstracts followed by full-text review was conducted. Primary observational studies conducted in the United States that reported on disparities in rehabilitation (i.e., physical, occupational, or speech therapy) among adults following stroke were retained. Eligible disparity populations included racial minorities; ethnic minorities; sex and gender minorities; older population; socioeconomically disadvantaged populations; and geographic minorities (inner city/rural).

DATA EXTRACTION

Data extracted from retained articles included: aims/objectives; data source; sample characteristics, rehabilitation outcomes examined; types of disparities examined; statistical methods used; and disparity findings.

DATA SYNTHESIS

7,853 titles and abstracts were screened, and 473 articles underwent full-text review. 49 articles were included for data extraction and analysis. Many articles examined more than one disparity type with most examining disparities in race and/or ethnicity (n=43, 87.7%), followed by sex (n=25, 53.0%), age (n=23, 46.9%), socioeconomic status (n=22, 44.9%), and urban/rural status (n=8, 16.3%). Articles varied widely by sample characteristics, data sources, rehabilitation outcomes, and methods of examining disparities.

CONCLUSIONS

While we found some consistent evidence of disparities in rehabilitation for older individuals, non-White races, and individuals of lower socioeconomic status, the variability in methods made synthesis of findings challenging. Further work, including additional well-designed studies and systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses of current studies are needed to better understand the extent of rehabilitation disparities following stroke.

Diversity and Disparities in Lung Cancer Outcomes Among Minorities

ABSTRACT

Because of diversities and disparities, lung cancer incidence and mortality rates among minorities are disproportionate compared with non-Hispanic White (NHW) populations. This review focuses on the disparities in lung cancer screening, diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes that minorities, mainly Hispanic and Black, experience compared with NHW populations. Despite efforts such as improving the eligibility criteria for screening to improve lung cancer survival rates, disparities persist, particularly among minority populations. However, the "Hispanic Paradox" describes the lower incidence and better survival rates observed in Hispanics compared with other ethnic groups best explained by possible contributions such as genetics and other factors such as dietary habits. Disparities in screening, particularly among underrepresented populations, are frequently explained by cultural, socioeconomic, and health care access barriers. There are also disparities in receiving appropriate treatment, such as surgical treatment, with fewer Hispanics and Blacks undergoing surgery than NHW individuals, resulting in lower overall survival rates. In addition, the prevalence of biomarker testing varies by racial and ethnic groups, influencing personalized treatment plans and outcomes. Finally, because of genetic and social determinants of health, the clinical outcomes of targeted therapy and immunotherapy may differ among minority populations. Identifying and addressing social determinants of health in real time are a "must" to have a significant impact in reducing lung cancer disparities. A comprehensive and multifaceted strategy is required to rectify disparities in cancer treatment. This strategy includes increasing levels of awareness and education, reducing financial and access barriers, and promoting increased diversity in clinical trial recruitment. By effectively addressing these complex challenges, the objective of providing equitable cancer care to all patients, regardless of race or ethnicity, can be achieved. To identify and address disparities, heightened awareness and education are essential. Access to health care is ensured by reducing financial and access barriers. Finally, increased diversity in clinical trial recruitment advances the generalizability of findings and promotes equitable representation of all racial and ethnic groups, resulting in improved outcomes for all patients.

Racial Disparities in Adherence to Annual Lung Cancer Screening and Recommended Follow-Up Care: A Multicenter Cohort Study

Rationale: Black patients receive recommended lung cancer screening (LCS) follow-up care less frequently than White patients, but it is unknown if this racial disparity persists across both decentralized and centralized LCS programs. Objectives: To determine adherence to American College of Radiology Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) recommendations among individuals undergoing LCS at either decentralized or centralized programs and to evaluate the association of race with LCS adherence. Methods: We performed a multicenter retrospective cohort study of patients receiving LCS at five heterogeneous U.S. healthcare systems. We calculated adherence to annual LCS among patients with a negative baseline screen (Lung-RADS 1 or 2) and recommended follow-up care among those with a positive baseline screen (Lung-RADS 3, 4A, 4B, or 4X) stratified by type of LCS program and evaluated the association between race and adherence using multivariable modified Poisson regression. Results: Of the 6,134 total individuals receiving LCS, 5,142 (83.8%) had negative baseline screens, and 992 (16.2%) had positive baseline screens. Adherence to both annual LCS (34.8% vs. 76.1%; P < 0.001) and recommended follow-up care (63.9% vs. 74.6%; P < 0.001) was lower at decentralized compared with centralized programs. Among individuals with negative baseline screens, a racial disparity in adherence was observed only at decentralized screening programs (interaction term, P < 0.001). At decentralized programs, Black race was associated with 27% reduced adherence to annual LCS (adjusted relative risk [aRR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63-0.84), whereas at centralized programs, no effect by race was observed (aRR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.91-1.05). In contrast, among those with positive baseline screens, there was no significant difference by race for adherence to recommended follow-up care by type of LCS program (decentralized aRR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.81-1.11; centralized aRR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71-0.93; interaction term, P = 0.176). Conclusions: In this large multicenter study of individuals screened for lung cancer, adherence to both annual LCS and recommended follow-up care was greater at centralized screening programs. Black patients were less likely to receive annual LCS than White patients at decentralized compared with centralized LCS programs. Our results highlight the need for further study of healthcare system-level mechanisms to optimize longitudinal LCS care.