5 research outputs found
Recommended from our members
Social disparities among youth and the impact on their health
PURPOSE: Social disparities among youth have been recognized as an important influence on disease risk later in the life cycle. Despite this, social problems are seldom assessed in a clinical setting. The primary objective of our study was to evaluate the impact of social disparities on the health of youth. METHODS: A self-directed, web-based screening system was used to identify social disparities along seven social domains. Participants included youth, aged 15-24 years, recruited from an urban hospital clinic. The main outcome variable, self-rated health, was captured on a 5-point Likert scale. Univariable and multivariable regression models adjusted for sex, age, and race/ethnicity were implemented to assess the association between social problems and self-rated health. Correlation between social disparity problems was estimated using phi coefficient. RESULTS: Among 383 participants, 297 (78%) reported at least one social problem. The correlation among social disparity problems was low. Social disparities had an independent effect on self-rated health, and, in a fully adjusted model, disparities in health care access and food insecurity remained significant. The presence of even one social problem was associated with a decrease in overall health (β=0.68, P<0.01). CONCLUSION: There is a high burden of social disparities among our youth urban hospital population. The presence of even one social problem increases the risk of worsening self-rated health. Evaluating the social disparities among youth in the medical setting can help elucidate factors that negatively affect patients' health
Recommended from our members
County Poverty Concentration and Disparities in Unintentional Injury Deaths: A Fourteen-Year Analysis of 1.6 Million U.S. Fatalities
Unintentional injury is the fourth leading cause of death in the United States, and mortality due to injury has risen over the past decade. The social determinants behind these rising trends have not been well documented. This study examines the relationship between county-level poverty and unintentional injury mortality in the United States from 1999–2012. Complete annual compressed mortality and population data for 1999–2012 were obtained from the National Center for Health Statistics and linked with census yearly county poverty measures. The outcomes examined were unintentional injury fatalities, overall and by six specific mechanisms: motor vehicle collisions, falls, accidental discharge of firearms, drowning, exposure to smoke or fire, and unintentional poisoning. Age-adjusted mortality rates and time trends for county poverty categories were calculated, and multivariate negative binomial regression was used to determine changes over time in both the relative risk of living in high poverty concentration areas and the population attributable fraction. Age-adjusted mortality rates for counties with > 20% poverty were 66% higher mortality in 1999 compared with counties with < 5% poverty (45.25 vs. 27.24 per 100,000; 95% CI for rate difference 15.57,20.46), and that gap widened in 2012 to 79% (44.54 vs. 24.93; 95% CI for rate difference 17.13,22.09). The relative risk of living in the highest poverty counties has increased for all injury mechanisms with the exception of accidental discharge of firearms. The population attributable fraction for all unintentional injuries rose from 0.22 (95% CI 0.13,0.30) in 1999 to 0.35 (95% CI 0.22,0.45) in 2012. This is the first study that uses comprehensive mortality data to document the associations between county poverty and injury mortality rates for the entire US population over a 14 year period. This study suggests that injury reduction interventions should focus on areas of high or increasing poverty
Characteristics of Future Models of Integrated Outpatient Care
Replacement of fee-for-service with capitation arrangements, forces physicians and institutions to minimize health care costs, while maintaining high-quality care. In this report we described how patients and their families (or caregivers) can work with members of the medical care team to achieve these twin goals of maintaining—and perhaps improving—high-quality care and minimizing costs. We described how increased self-management enables patients and their families/caregivers to provide electronic patient-reported outcomes (i.e., symptoms, events) (ePROs), as frequently as the patient or the medical care team consider appropriate. These capabilities also allow ongoing assessments of physiological measurements/phenomena (mHealth). Remote surveillance of these communications allows longer intervals between (fewer) patient visits to the medical-care team, when this is appropriate, or earlier interventions, when it is appropriate. Systems are now available that alert medical care providers to situations when interventions might be needed
Recommended from our members
Proactive Tobacco Cessation Outreach to Smokers of Low Socioeconomic Status
IMPORTANCE: Widening socioeconomic disparities in mortality in the United States are largely explained by slower declines in tobacco use among smokers of low socioeconomic status (SES) than among those of higher SES, which points to the need for targeted tobacco cessation interventions. Documentation of smoking status in electronic health records (EHRs) provides the tools for health systems to proactively offer tobacco treatment to socioeconomically disadvantaged smokers. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a proactive tobacco cessation strategy that addresses sociocontextual mediators of tobacco use for low-SES smokers. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This prospective, randomized clinical trial included low-SES adult smokers who described their race and/or ethnicity as black, Hispanic, or white and received primary care at 1 of 13 practices in the greater Boston area (intervention group, n = 399; control group, n = 308). INTERVENTIONS: We analyzed EHRs to identify potentially eligible participants and then used interactive voice response (IVR) techniques to reach out to them. Consenting patients were randomized to either receive usual care from their own health care team or enter an intervention program that included (1) telephone-based motivational counseling, (2) free nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) for 6 weeks, (3) access to community-based referrals to address sociocontextual mediators of tobacco use, and (4) integration of all these components into their normal health care through the EHR system. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Self-reported past-7-day tobacco abstinence 9 months after randomization ("quitting"), assessed by automated caller or blinded study staff. RESULTS: The intervention group had a higher quit rate than the usual care group (17.8% vs 8.1%; odds ratio, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.5-4.0; number needed to treat, 10). We examined whether use of intervention components was associated with quitting among individuals in the intervention group: individuals who participated in the telephone counseling were more likely to quit than those who did not (21.2% vs 10.4%; P < .001). There was no difference in quitting by use of NRT. Quitting did not differ by a request for a community referral, but individuals who used their referral were more likely to quit than those who did not (43.6% vs 15.3%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Proactive, IVR-facilitated outreach enables engagement with low-SES smokers. Providing counseling, NRT, and access to community-based resources to address sociocontextual mediators among smokers reached in this setting is effective