RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Breast cancer screening (BCS) disparities leave historically underserved groups more vulnerable to adverse outcomes. This study explores granular associations between BCS and patient sociodemographic factors in a large urban safety-net health system. METHODS: A retrospective review among female patients ages 50-74 within an urban safety-net health system was conducted in 2019. All patients had a primary care visit in the past 2 years. Multiple patient health and sociodemographic characteristics were reviewed, as well as provider gender and specialty. Bivariate analyses and multivariable logistic regression were performed in 2022. RESULTS: The BCS rate among 11,962 women was 69.7%. Over half of patients were non-White (63.6%) and had public insurance (72.3%). Patients with limited English proficiency made up 44.3% of the cohort. Compared to their sociodemographic counterparts, patients with White race, English proficiency, and Medicare insurance had the lowest rates of BCS. Serious mental illness and substance use disorder were associated with lower odds of BCS. In multivariable analysis, when using White race and English speakers as a reference, most other races (Black, Hispanic, and Other) and languages (Spanish, Portuguese, and Other) had significantly higher odds of screening ranging from 8% to 63% higher, except Asian race and Haitian Creole language. Female (versus male) and internal medicine-trained providers were associated with higher screening odds. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple unique variables contribute to BCS disparities, influenced by patient and health system factors. Defining and understanding the interplay of these variables can guide policymaking and identify avenues to improve BCS for vulnerable or traditionally under-resourced populations.

Assuntos

Neoplasias da Mama , Medicare , Humanos , Masculino , Feminino , Idoso , Estados Unidos , Neoplasias da Mama/diagnóstico , Haiti , Detecção Precoce de Câncer , Idioma , Disparidades em Assistência à Saúde

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Our aim was to examine differences in clinical outcomes between Hispanic subgroups who underwent emergency general surgery (EGS). METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of the HCUP State Inpatient Database from New Jersey (2009-2014), including Hispanic and non-Hispanic White (NHW) adult patients who underwent EGS. Multivariable analyses were performed on outcomes including 7-day readmission and length of stay (LOS). RESULTS: 125,874 patients underwent EGS operations. 22,971 were Hispanic (15,488 with subgroup defined: 7,331 - Central/South American; 4,254 - Puerto Rican; 3,170 - Mexican; 733 - Cuban). On multivariable analysis, patients in the Central/South American subgroup were more likely to be readmitted compared to the Mexican subgroup (OR 2.02; p < 0.001, respectively). Puerto Rican and Central/South American subgroups had significantly shorter LOS than Mexican patients (Puerto Rico -0.58 days; p < 0.001; Central/South American -0.30 days; p = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: There are significant differences in EGS outcomes between Hispanic subgroups. These differences could be missed when data are aggregated at Hispanic ethnicity.

Assuntos

Tratamento de Emergência/estatística & dados numéricos , Hispânico ou Latino/estatística & dados numéricos , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Operatórios/estatística & dados numéricos , Adulto , Idoso , América Central/etnologia , Cuba/etnologia , Bases de Dados Factuais , Tratamento de Emergência/mortalidade , Feminino , Cirurgia Geral/estatística & dados numéricos , Hispânico ou Latino/classificação , Humanos , Tempo de Internação/estatística & dados numéricos , Masculino , México/etnologia , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Análise Multivariada , New Jersey , Readmissão do Paciente/estatística & dados numéricos , Porto Rico/etnologia , Estudos Retrospectivos , América do Sul/etnologia , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Operatórios/mortalidade

RESUMO

In designing and implementing a peer support writing group for junior researchers at our home institution, we saw an opportunity to advance the understanding of this intervention as a valuable tool for future physician-scientists. We, therefore, performed a scoping literature review of the available literature on peer support writing groups in clinical disciplines to learn what has been described about this topic. We paid specific attention to the characteristics, implementation, and impact of these groups on the academic development of medical/healthcare scientists. We performed a scoping literature review following the conceptual framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley. We included studies describing the characteristics, implementation, and impact/effects of peer support writing groups in clinical disciplines. All the information extracted was summarized descriptively to chart the available literature on peer support writing groups in clinical disciplines. We identified a total of 369 articles, of which six were finally included. The absolute number of papers published increased considerably after the participation in the peer support writing groups. The subjective comments of the participating individuals highlighted the positive effects of these groups on the academic productivity of attendees. Available information shows a significant increase in the absolute number of publications and a positive perception between individuals participating in peer support writing groups. Stakeholders should implement this strategy in their home academic institutions.