4.4 Article

African American/white disparities in psychiatric emergencies among youth following rapid expansion of Federally Qualified Health Centers

期刊

HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH
卷 55, 期 1, 页码 26-34

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1475-6773.13237

关键词

children; adolescents; youths; emergency department; Federally Qualified Health Centers; psychiatry; racial; ethnic disparities

资金

  1. National Institute of Mental Health [1R21MH110815-01A1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To test whether rapid expansion of mental health services in Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) reduces African American/white disparities in youth psychiatric emergency department (ED) visits. Data Sources Secondary ED data for psychiatric care for 3.3 million African American and white youth in nine states, 2006-2011. We used the HCUP SEDD and SID. We obtained FQHC service data from the Uniform Data System. Study Design The psychiatric ED visit is the dependent variable. Logistic regression methods control for individual risk factors for ED use, as well as county-level health system factors and county and year fixed effects. Key independent variables include indicators of mental health service capacity in FQHCs in a county-year. Data Extraction Methods We extracted ED psychiatric visits for 3.3 million African American and white youth in nine states, 2006-2011, from the HCUP SEDD and SID, and FQHC data from the Uniform Data System. Principal Findings Overall mental health visits at FQHCs correlate positively with psychiatric ED visits among African American youth. However, increases in the number of mental health visits per FQHC patient corresponds with fewer outpatient psychiatric ED visits among African American youth, relative to white youth (odds ratio = 0.96; 95% CI = 0.94, 0.98). Conclusions Increases in the intensity of services offered per mental health patient at FQHCs-rather than increases in overall capacity-may reduce African American youth's overreliance on the ED for psychiatric care.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据