4.7 Article

Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Among Racial and Ethnic Minority Patients With Alzheimer Disease and Related Dementias

期刊

JAMA NETWORK OPEN
卷 5, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.33436

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute on Aging [R01AG62315-01A1]
  2. National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities [R01MD011523S1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examines racial and ethnic disparities in CAHPS measures among patients with Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD), and explores the association between social determinants of health and CAHPS disparities. The results demonstrate significant variations in CAHPS scores by race and ethnicity among ADRD patients enrolled in Medicare Shared Savings Program Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs). Social determinants of health play a critical role in explaining these disparities. However, more research is needed to fully understand the disparities in CAHPS measures.
IMPORTANCE Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) measures have been used widely to measure patient-centered care. Evidence is needed to understand CAHPS measures among racial and ethnic minority patients with Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD). OBJECTIVE To examine racial and ethnic disparities in CAHPS among patients with ADRD and to examine the association between social determinants of health and CAHPS disparities. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This study focused on patients with ADRD who were enrolled in Medicare Shared Savings Program Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs). The primary data sets were the 2017 Medicare Beneficiary Summary File and the beneficiary-level ACO data. The study population was limited to community-based beneficiaries who had a diagnosis of ADRD and were aged 65 years and older. Cross-sectional analyses and the decomposition approach were implemented. Data were analyzed from November 2021 to July 2022. EXPOSURE Enrollment in a Medicare Shared Savings Program ACO. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Six ACO CAHPS measures were included: getting timely care, appointments, and information; how well providers communicate; patients' rating of provider; access to specialists; health promotion and education; and shared decision-making. ACO CAHPS were continuous measures with possible ranges from 0 to 100. The summation of these 6 measures as an overall index was also created. In CAHPS measures, the term provider can include hospitals, home health care agencies, and doctors, among others. RESULTS The final sample included 568 368 beneficiaries (347 783 female patients [61.2%]; 38 030 African American patients [6.69%], 6258 Asian patients [1.10%], 18 231 Hispanic patients [3.21%], and 505 849 White patients [89.0%]; mean [SD] age, 82.17 [7.95] years). Significant racial and ethnic disparities in CAHPS scores were observed. After controlling for beneficiary, hospital, and area characteristics, compared with their White counterparts, African American or Black (coefficient = -1.05; 95% CI, -1.15 to -0.95; P <.001), Asian (coefficient = -0.414; 95% CI, -0.623 to -0.205; P <.001), and Hispanic (coefficient = -0.099; 95% CI, -0.229 to 0.032; P =.14) patients with ADRD reported lower total CAHPS scores. Disparities were also observed among individual ACO CAHPS. Decomposition results showed that a proxy for social determinants of health explained 10% to 13% of disparities of ACO CAHPS between African American or Black vs White and Hispanic vs White patients with ADRD. Most of the racial and ethnic disparities, especially those between White and Asian individuals, could not be explained by the models used to analyze data. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE These results demonstrated significant variations in CAHPS by race and ethnicity among patients with ADRD enrolled in ACOs. Social determinants of health are critical in explaining racial and ethnic disparities. More research is needed to explain disparities in CAHPS.

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

4.7
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