Stephanie Navarro1, Xiaohui Hu1, Aaron Mejia1, Carol Y Ochoa1, Trevor A Pickering1, Leslie Ballas2, Albert J Farias3,4. 1. Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, 2001 N. Soto Street, Suite 318B, Los Angeles, CA, 90032, USA. 2. USC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, 1441 Eastlake Avenue, Los Angeles, CA, 90033, USA. 3. Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, 2001 N. Soto Street, Suite 318B, Los Angeles, CA, 90032, USA. albertfa@usc.edu. 4. Gehr Family Center for Health Systems Science and Innovation, Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, 2020 Zonal Avenue, IRD 318, Los Angeles, CA, 90033, USA. albertfa@usc.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine whether racial/ethnic differences in patient experiences with care, potentially leading to underutilization of necessary care, are associated with disparities in Gleason score at diagnosis. METHODS: We used the SEER-CAHPS linked dataset to identify Medicare beneficiaries who completed a Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey prior to diagnosis of prostate cancer. Independent variables included aspects of patient experiences with care captured by CAHPS surveys. We conducted survey weighted multivariable multinomial logistic regression analyses, stratified by patient race/ethnicity, to estimate associations of CAHPS measures with Gleason score at diagnosis. RESULTS: Of the 4,245 patients with prostate cancer, most were non-Hispanic white (NHW) (77.6%), followed by non-Hispanic black (NHB) (8.4%), Hispanic (8.4%), and Asian (5.6%). Excellent experience with getting needed prescription drugs was associated with lower odds of Gleason scores of 7 and 8-10 in NHBs (7: OR = 0.19, 95% CI = 0.05-0.67; 8-10: OR = 0.04, 95% CI = 0.01-0.2) and lower odds of 8-10 in NHWs (OR = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.40-0.93). For NHBs, excellent primary physician ratings were associated with greater odds of a Gleason score of 8-10 (OR = 13.28, 95% CI = 1.53-115.21). CONCLUSION: Patient experiences with access to care and physician relationships may influence Gleason score in different ways for patients of different racial/ethnic groups. More research, including large observational studies with greater proportions of racial/ethnic minority patients, is necessary to understand these relationships and target interventions to overcome disparities and improve patient outcomes.
PURPOSE: To determine whether racial/ethnic differences in patient experiences with care, potentially leading to underutilization of necessary care, are associated with disparities in Gleason score at diagnosis. METHODS: We used the SEER-CAHPS linked dataset to identify Medicare beneficiaries who completed a Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey prior to diagnosis of prostate cancer. Independent variables included aspects of patient experiences with care captured by CAHPS surveys. We conducted survey weighted multivariable multinomial logistic regression analyses, stratified by patient race/ethnicity, to estimate associations of CAHPS measures with Gleason score at diagnosis. RESULTS: Of the 4,245 patients with prostate cancer, most were non-Hispanic white (NHW) (77.6%), followed by non-Hispanic black (NHB) (8.4%), Hispanic (8.4%), and Asian (5.6%). Excellent experience with getting needed prescription drugs was associated with lower odds of Gleason scores of 7 and 8-10 in NHBs (7: OR = 0.19, 95% CI = 0.05-0.67; 8-10: OR = 0.04, 95% CI = 0.01-0.2) and lower odds of 8-10 in NHWs (OR = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.40-0.93). For NHBs, excellent primary physician ratings were associated with greater odds of a Gleason score of 8-10 (OR = 13.28, 95% CI = 1.53-115.21). CONCLUSION: Patient experiences with access to care and physician relationships may influence Gleason score in different ways for patients of different racial/ethnic groups. More research, including large observational studies with greater proportions of racial/ethnic minority patients, is necessary to understand these relationships and target interventions to overcome disparities and improve patient outcomes.
Authors: Paul Riviere; Elaine Luterstein; Abhishek Kumar; Lucas K Vitzthum; Rishi Deka; Reith R Sarkar; Alex K Bryant; Andrew Bruggeman; John P Einck; James D Murphy; María Elena Martínez; Brent S Rose Journal: Cancer Date: 2020-01-27 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Rebecca Anhang Price; Marc N Elliott; Alan M Zaslavsky; Ron D Hays; William G Lehrman; Lise Rybowski; Susan Edgman-Levitan; Paul D Cleary Journal: Med Care Res Rev Date: 2014-07-15 Impact factor: 3.929
Authors: R M Hoffman; F D Gilliland; J W Eley; L C Harlan; R A Stephenson; J L Stanford; P C Albertson; A S Hamilton; W C Hunt; A L Potosky Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2001-03-07 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Alex Tsodikov; Roman Gulati; Tiago M de Carvalho; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Rachel A Hunter-Merrill; Angela B Mariotto; Harry J de Koning; Ruth Etzioni Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-04-24 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Robert T Dess; Holly E Hartman; Brandon A Mahal; Payal D Soni; William C Jackson; Matthew R Cooperberg; Christopher L Amling; William J Aronson; Christopher J Kane; Martha K Terris; Zachary S Zumsteg; Santino Butler; Joseph R Osborne; Todd M Morgan; Rohit Mehra; Simpa S Salami; Amar U Kishan; Chenyang Wang; Edward M Schaeffer; Mack Roach; Thomas M Pisansky; William U Shipley; Stephen J Freedland; Howard M Sandler; Susan Halabi; Felix Y Feng; James J Dignam; Paul L Nguyen; Matthew J Schipper; Daniel E Spratt Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2019-07-01 Impact factor: 31.777