Discrimination in Medical Settings across Populations: Evidence from the All of Us Research Program.

INTRODUCTION: Discrimination in medical settings (DMS) contributes to health care disparities in the United States, but few studies have determined the extent of DMS in a large national sample and across different populations. This study estimated the national prevalence of DMS and described demographic and health-related characteristics associated with experiencing DMS in seven different situations. METHODS: Survey data from 41,875 adults participating in the All of Us Research Program collected in 2021-2022 and logistic regression were used to examine the association between sociodemographic and health-related characteristics and self-reported DMS among adults engaged with a health care provider within the past 12 months. Statistical analysis was performed in 2023-2024. RESULTS: About 36.89% of adults reported having experienced at least one DMS situation. Adults with relative social and medical disadvantages had higher prevalence of experiencing DMS. Compared to their counterparts, respondents with higher odds of experiencing DMS in at least one situation identified as female, non-Hispanic Black, having at least some college, living in the South, renter, having other living arrangement, being publicly insured, not having a usual source of care, having multiple chronic conditions, having any disability, and reporting fair or poor health, p<0.05. CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate a high prevalence of DMS, particularly among some population groups. Characterizing DMS may be a valuable tool for identifying populations at risk within the health care system and optimizing the overall patient care experience. Implementing relevant policies remains an essential strategy for mitigating the prevalence of DMS and reducing health care disparities.

Self-Care of African Immigrant Adults with Chronic Illness.

This cross-sectional study aims to describe the self-care of adult African immigrants in the US with chronic illness and explore the relationship between acculturation and self-care. A total of 88 African immigrants with chronic illness were enrolled. Self-care was measured with the Self Care of Chronic Illness Inventory v3 and the Self-Care Self-Efficacy scale. Scores are standardized 0 to 100 with scores >70 considered adequate. Acculturation was measured using a modified standardized acculturation instrument and predefined acculturation proxies. The self-care scores showed adequate self-care, with the mean scores of 78.6, 77.9, and 75.6 for self-care maintenance, monitoring, and management. Self-care self-efficacy mean score was 81.3. Acculturation was not significantly associated with self-care. Self-care self-efficacy was a strong determinant of self-care maintenance (p < .0001), monitoring (p < .0001), and management (p < .0001). The perception of inadequate income was a significant determinant of poor self-care management (p = .03). Self-care self-efficacy and perceived income adequacy were better determinants of self-care than acculturation.

Cross-cultural assessment of the Self-Care of Chronic Illness Inventory: A psychometric evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Self-care refers to behaviors that individuals adopt to prevent or maintain the stability of an illness (self-care maintenance), to monitor signs and symptoms (self-care monitoring), and to respond to signs and symptoms of an illness exacerbation (self-care management). A generic measure of self-care, the Self-Care of Chronic Illness Inventory, based on the Theory of Self-Care of Chronic Illness, was developed for use in individuals with any number and type of chronic conditions. OBJECTIVE: The current study investigated the measurement equivalence of the Self-Care of Chronic Illness Inventory in individuals from three different cultural groups. We were interested in determining if Italians, Swedes, and Americans interpret the measure in a conceptually similar way. METHODS: This cross-sectional study enrolled 1629 patients, 784 recruited in Italy, 438 in Sweden and 407 in the United States. Self-care (self-care maintenance, self-care monitoring and self-care management) was measured with the Self-Care of Chronic Illness Inventory. A multi-group confirmatory factor analytic approach was used to assess the equivalence of the measures across the three countries. Configural, metric, scalar and strict invariance were tested through a series of nested models where increasingly stringent equality constraints were posited. RESULTS: Participants were mostly males (56.3%), older adults (69.8%) and had at least two chronic conditions. Results indicated that three out of four measurement equivalence levels were partially or totally supported in all three of the Self-Care of Chronic Illness Inventory scales. The partial scalar invariance level was reached for self-care maintenance [χ2(50) = 63.495, p = 0.095; RMSEA = 0.022, p = 0.999, 90% CI = 0.000 0.038; CFI = 0.981; TLI = 0.977; SRMR = 0.036], self-care monitoring [χ2(22) = 28.770, p = 0.095; RMSEA = 0.024, p = 0.978, 90% CI = 0.000 0.046; CFI = 0.996; TLI = 0.995; SRMR = 0.054], and self-care management [χ2(51) = 91.334, p = 0.001; RMSEA = 0.048, p = 0.576, 90% CI = 0.031 0.063; CFI = 0.949; TLI = 0.937; SRMR = 0.047] scales. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that patients in the three countries used an identical cognitive framework or mental model when responding and used the 1-5 Likert response scale in an almost identical way, almost without bias. In spite of sociocultural differences, patients in these countries seem to share the same fundamental view of self-care. The results of the Self-Care of Chronic Illness Inventory will be comparable in these countries.

Cross-cultural applicability of the Self-Care Self-Efficacy Scale in a multi-national study.

AIM: The Self-Care Self-Efficacy Scale (SCSES) was newly developed as a self-report measure for self-care self-efficacy for chronic illness. This study investigated its measurement equivalence (ME) in different cultural groups, including United States, China (Hong Kong), Italy, and Brazil. DESIGN: A multi-national study for cross-cultural validation of the Scale. METHODS: From January 2015 - December 2018, investigators recruited 957 patients (United State: 200; Hong Kong: 300; Italy: 285; and Brazil: 142) with chronic illness from inpatient and outpatient settings. The SCSES was administered and clinical and demographic data were collected from participants. Based on the Meredith framework, multi-group confirmatory factor analysis evaluated the configural, metric, scalar, and strict invariance of the scale across the four populations through a series of nested models, with evaluation of reliability and coherence of the factor solution. RESULTS: The mean ages of the groups ranged from 65-77 years, 56.4% was male. The Cronbach's alpha coefficients of the single-factor SCSES were 0.93, 0.89, 0.92, and 0.90 for the United States, China (Hong Kong), Italy, and Brazil, respectively. Three of the four levels of ME were partially or totally supported. The highest level achieved was partial scalar invariance level (χ2 [52] = 313.4, p < 0.001; RMSEA = 0.067; 95% CI = 0.056-0.077; CFI = 0.966; TLI = 0.960, SRMR = 0.080). CONCLUSION: Patients from the four countries shared the same philosophical orientation towards scale items, although some of the items contributed differently to represent the concept and participants shared the same schemata for score interpretation. IMPACT: Self-efficacy is important in producing effective and sustainable self-care behavioural changes. Cultural ideation shapes the ways individuals interpret and report their self-care self-efficacy. The study findings support cross-cultural and cross-national utility of the SCSES for research on self-care across United States, China (Hong Kong), Italy, and Brazil.

Psychometric Testing of the Revised Self-Care of Heart Failure Index.

BACKGROUND: Self-care is essential in people with chronic heart failure (HF). The process of self-care was refined in the revised situation specific theory of HF self-care, so we updated the instrument measuring self-care to match the updated theory. The aim of this study was to test the psychometric properties of the revised 29-item Self-Care of Heart Failure Index (SCHFI). METHODS: A cross-sectional design was used in the primary psychometric analysis using data collected at 5 sites in the United States. A longitudinal design was used at the site collecting test-retest data. We tested SCHFI validity with confirmatory factor analysis and predictive validity in relation to health-related quality of life. We tested SCHFI reliability with Cronbach α, global reliability index, and test-retest reliability. RESULTS: Participants included 631 adults with HF (mean age, 65 ± 14.3 years; 63% male). A series of confirmatory factor analyses supported the factorial structure of the SCHFI with 3 scales: Self-Care Maintenance (with consulting behavior and dietary behavior dimensions), Symptom Perception (with monitoring behavior and symptom recognition dimensions), and Self-Care Management (with recommended behavior and problem-solving behavior dimensions). Reliability estimates were 0.70 or greater for all scales. Predictive validity was supportive with significant correlations between SCHFI scores and health-related quality-of-life scores. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis supports validity and reliability of the SCHFI v7.2. It is freely available to users on the website: www.self-care-measures.com.