4.2 Article

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Patient-Provider Communication With Breast Cancer Patients: Evidence From 2011 MEPS and Experiences With Cancer Supplement

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0046958017727104

关键词

patient-doctor communication; breast cancer; racial; ethnic disparities; Medical Expenditure Panel Survey; experiences with cancer supplement; cultural competency; patient activation; ordered logistic regression

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The current study explores racial/ethnic disparities in the quality of patient-provider communication during treatment, among breast cancer patients. A unique data set, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey and Experiences With Cancer Supplement 2011, is used to examine this topic. Using measures of the quality of patient-provider communication that patients are best qualified to evaluate, we explore the relationship between race/ethnicity and patients' perspectives on whether (1) patient-provider interactions are respectful, (2) providers are listening to patients, (3) providers provide adequate explanations of outcomes and treatment, and (4) providers spend adequate time in interacting with the patients. We also examine the relationship between race/ethnicity and patients' perspectives on whether their (1) doctor ever discussed need for regular follow-up care and monitoring after completing treatment, (2) doctor ever discussed long-term side effects of cancer treatment, (3) doctor ever discussed emotional or social needs related to cancer, and (4) doctor ever discussed lifestyle or health recommendations. Multivariate ordinary least squares and ordered logistic regression models indicate that after controlling for factors such as income and health insurance coverage, the quality of patient-provider communication with breast cancer patients varies by race/ethnicity. Non-Hispanic blacks experience the greatest communication deficit. Our findings can inform the content of future strategies to reduce disparities.

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

4.2
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