Felisa A Gonzales1, Meera Sangaramoorthy2, Laura A Dwyer3, Salma Shariff-Marco2,4, Amani M Allen5, Allison W Kurian6,7, Juan Yang2, Michelle M Langer8, Laura Allen2, Bryce B Reeve9, Stephen H Taplin10, Scarlett Lin Gomez11,12. 1. Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, The Colorado Trust, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, USA. 2. Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, School of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, 550 16th Street, San Francisco, CA, USA. 3. Cape Fox Facilities Services, Manassas, VA, USA. 4. Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, 550 16th Street, San Francisco, CA, USA. 5. School of Public Health, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA. 6. Health Research & Policy (Epidemiology), School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. 7. Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. 8. Department of Medical Social Sciences, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA. 9. Center for Health Measurement, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA. 10. Center for Global Health, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, USA. 11. Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, School of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, 550 16th Street, San Francisco, CA, USA. scarlett.gomez@ucsf.edu. 12. Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, 550 16th Street, San Francisco, CA, USA. scarlett.gomez@ucsf.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine whether interpersonal aspects of patient-clinician interactions, such as patient-perceived medical discrimination, clinician mistrust, and treatment decision-making contribute to racial/ethnic/educational disparities in breast cancer care. METHODS: A telephone interview was administered to 542 Asian/Pacific Islander (API), Black, Hispanic, and White women identified through the Greater Bay Area Cancer Registry, ages 20 and older diagnosed with a first primary invasive breast cancer. Adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated from logistic regression models that assessed associations between race/ethnicity/education, medical discrimination, clinician mistrust, and treatment decision-making with concordance to breast cancer treatment guidelines (guideline-concordant treatment) and perceived quality of care (pQoC). RESULTS: Approximately three-quarters of women received treatment that was guideline-concordant (76.6%) and reported that their breast cancer care was excellent (72.1%). Non-college-educated Black women had lower odds of guideline-concordant care (aOR (CI) = 0.29 (0.12-0.67)) vs. college-educated White women. Odds of excellent pQoC were lower among the following: college-educated Hispanic women (aOR (CI) = 0.09 (0.02-0.47)) and API women regardless of education (aORs ≤ 0.50) vs. college-educated White women, women reporting low and moderate levels of discrimination (aORs ≤ 0.44) vs. none, and women reporting any clinician mistrust (aOR (CI) = 0.50 (0.29-0.88)) vs. none. Disparities in guideline-concordant care and pQoC persisted after controlling for medical discrimination, clinician mistrust, and decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: Interpersonal aspects of the patient-clinician interaction had an impact on pQoC but not receipt of guideline-concordant treatment and did not explain disparities in either outcome. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Although breast cancer survivors' interpersonal interactions with clinicians did not influence receipt of appropriate treatment, intervention strategies to improve patient-clinician relations may help attenuate disparities in survivors' pQoC.
PURPOSE: To examine whether interpersonal aspects of patient-clinician interactions, such as patient-perceived medical discrimination, clinician mistrust, and treatment decision-making contribute to racial/ethnic/educational disparities in breast cancer care. METHODS: A telephone interview was administered to 542 Asian/Pacific Islander (API), Black, Hispanic, and White women identified through the Greater Bay Area Cancer Registry, ages 20 and older diagnosed with a first primary invasive breast cancer. Adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated from logistic regression models that assessed associations between race/ethnicity/education, medical discrimination, clinician mistrust, and treatment decision-making with concordance to breast cancer treatment guidelines (guideline-concordant treatment) and perceived quality of care (pQoC). RESULTS: Approximately three-quarters of women received treatment that was guideline-concordant (76.6%) and reported that their breast cancer care was excellent (72.1%). Non-college-educated Black women had lower odds of guideline-concordant care (aOR (CI) = 0.29 (0.12-0.67)) vs. college-educated White women. Odds of excellent pQoC were lower among the following: college-educated Hispanic women (aOR (CI) = 0.09 (0.02-0.47)) and API women regardless of education (aORs ≤ 0.50) vs. college-educated White women, women reporting low and moderate levels of discrimination (aORs ≤ 0.44) vs. none, and women reporting any clinician mistrust (aOR (CI) = 0.50 (0.29-0.88)) vs. none. Disparities in guideline-concordant care and pQoC persisted after controlling for medical discrimination, clinician mistrust, and decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: Interpersonal aspects of the patient-clinician interaction had an impact on pQoC but not receipt of guideline-concordant treatment and did not explain disparities in either outcome. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Although breast cancer survivors' interpersonal interactions with clinicians did not influence receipt of appropriate treatment, intervention strategies to improve patient-clinician relations may help attenuate disparities in survivors' pQoC.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Decision-making; Discrimination; Disparities; Mistrust
Authors: Nynikka R A Palmer; Erin E Kent; Laura P Forsythe; Neeraj K Arora; Julia H Rowland; Noreen M Aziz; Danielle Blanch-Hartigan; Ingrid Oakley-Girvan; Ann S Hamilton; Kathryn E Weaver Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-11-17 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Thu Quach; Amani Nuru-Jeter; Pagan Morris; Laura Allen; Sarah J Shema; June K Winters; Gem M Le; Scarlett Lin Gomez Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2012-03-15 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Carol E DeSantis; Stacey A Fedewa; Ann Goding Sauer; Joan L Kramer; Robert A Smith; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2015-10-29 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Jennifer L Malin; Clifford Ko; John Z Ayanian; David Harrington; David R Nerenz; Katherine L Kahn; Julie Ganther-Urmie; Paul J Catalano; Alan M Zaslavsky; Robert B Wallace; Edward Guadagnoli; Neeraj K Arora; Maryse D Roudier; Patricia A Ganz Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2006-02-16 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: David R Williams; Emily Z Kontos; K Viswanath; Jennifer S Haas; Christopher S Lathan; Laura E MacConaill; Jarvis Chen; John Z Ayanian Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2012-03-30 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Scarlett Lin Gomez; David J Press; Daphne Lichtensztajn; Theresa H M Keegan; Sarah J Shema; Gem M Le; Allison W Kurian Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2012-03-08 Impact factor: 4.090
Authors: Kirsten A Nyrop; Allison M Deal; Bryce B Reeve; Ethan Basch; Yi Tang Chen; Ji Hye Park; Shlomit S Shachar; Lisa A Carey; Katherine E Reeder-Hayes; Elizabeth C Dees; Trevor A Jolly; Gretchen G Kimmick; Meghan S Karuturi; Raquel E Reinbolt; JoEllen C Speca; Jordan T Lee; William A Wood; Hyman B Muss Journal: Cancer Date: 2020-04-21 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Teresa Thomas; Andrew Althouse; Lauren Sigler; Robert Arnold; Edward Chu; Douglas B White; Margaret Rosenzweig; Kenneth Smith; Thomas J Smith; Yael Schenker Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2021-03-08 Impact factor: 3.955
Authors: Lauren Fane; Tithi Biswas; Charulata Jindal; Yuk Ming Choi; Jimmy T Efird Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-08-09 Impact factor: 4.614