Geographic Disparities in Access to Neurologists and Multiple Sclerosis Care in the United States.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: A shortage of neurology clinicians and healthcare disparities may hinder access to neurologic care. This study examined disparities in geographic access to neurologists and subspecialty multiple sclerosis (MS) care among various demographic segments of the United States. METHODS: Neurologist practice locations from 2022 CMS Care Compare physician data and MS Center locations as defined by the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers were used to compute spatial access for all U.S. census tracts. Census tract-level community characteristics (sex, age, race, ethnicity, education, income, insurance, % with computer, % without a vehicle, % with limited English, and % with hearing, vision, cognitive, and ambulatory difficulty) were obtained from 2020 American Community Survey 5-year estimates. Rural-urban status was obtained from 2010 rural-urban commuting area codes. Logistic and linear regression models were used to examine access to a neurologist or MS Center within 60 miles and 60-mile spatial access ratios. RESULTS: Of 70,858 census tracts, 388 had no neurologists within 60 miles and 17,837 had no MS centers within 60 miles. Geographic access to neurologists (spatial access ratio [99% CI]) was lower for rural (-80.49%; CI [-81.65 to -79.30]) and micropolitan (-60.50%; CI [-62.40 to -58.51]) areas compared with metropolitan areas. Tracts with 10% greater percentage of Hispanic individuals (-4.53%; CI [-5.23 to -3.83]), men (-6.76%; CI [-8.96 to -4.5]), uninsured (-7.99%; CI [-9.72 to -6.21]), individuals with hearing difficulty (-40.72%; CI [-44.62 to -36.54]), vision difficulty (-13.0%; [-18.72 to -6.89]), and ambulatory difficulty (-15.68%; CI [-19.25 to -11.95]) had lower access to neurologists. Census tracts with 10% greater Black individuals (3.50%; CI [2.93-10.71]), college degree holders (-7.49%; CI [6.67-8.32]), individuals with computers (16.57%, CI [13.82-19.40]), individuals without a vehicle (9.57%; CI [8.69-10.47]), individuals with cognitive difficulty (25.63%; CI [19.77-31.78]), and individuals with limited English (18.5%; CI [16.30-20.73]), and 10-year older individuals (8.85%; CI [7.03-10.71]) had higher spatial access to neurologists. Covariates for access followed similar patterns for MS centers. DISCUSSION: Geographic access to neurologists is decreased in rural areas, in areas with higher proportions of Hispanics, populations with disabilities, and those uninsured. Access is further limited for MS subspecialty care. This study highlights disparities in geographic access to neurologic care.

Statistical practice and transparent reporting in the neurosciences: Preclinical motor behavioral experiments.

Longitudinal and behavioral preclinical animal studies generate complex data, which may not be well matched to statistical approaches common in this literature. Analyses that do not adequately account for complexity may result in overly optimistic study conclusions, with consequences for reproducibility and translational decision-making. Recent work interrogating methodological shortcomings in animal research has not yet comprehensively investigated statistical shortcomings in the analysis of complex longitudinal and behavioral data. To this end, the current cross-sectional meta-research study rigorously reviewed published mouse or rat controlled experiments for motor rehabilitation in three neurologic conditions to evaluate statistical choices and reporting. Medline via PubMed was queried in February 2020 for English-language articles published January 1, 2017- December 31, 2019. Included were articles that used rat or mouse models of stroke, Parkinson's disease, or traumatic brain injury, employed a therapeutic controlled experimental design to determine efficacy, and assessed at least one functional behavioral assessment or global evaluation of function. 241 articles from 99 journals were evaluated independently by a team of nine raters. Articles were assessed for statistical handling of non-independence, animal attrition, outliers, ordinal data, and multiplicity. Exploratory analyses evaluated whether transparency or statistical choices differed as a function of journal factors. A majority of articles failed to account for sources of non-independence in the data (74-93%) and/or did not analytically account for mid-treatment animal attrition (78%). Ordinal variables were often treated as continuous (37%), outliers were predominantly not mentioned (83%), and plots often concealed the distribution of the data (51%) Statistical choices and transparency did not differ with regards to journal rank or reporting requirements. Statistical misapplication can result in invalid experimental findings and inadequate reporting obscures errors. Clinician-scientists evaluating preclinical work for translational promise should be mindful of commonplace errors. Interventions are needed to improve statistical decision-making in preclinical behavioral neurosciences research.