Adoption of Internal Medicine Milestone Ratings and Changes in Bias Against Black, Latino, and Asian Internal Medicine Residents.

BACKGROUND: The 2014 adoption of the Milestone ratings system may have affected evaluation bias against minoritized groups. OBJECTIVE: To assess bias in internal medicine (IM) residency knowledge ratings against Black or Latino residents-who are underrepresented in medicine (URiM)-and Asian residents before versus after Milestone adoption in 2014. DESIGN: Cross-sectional and interrupted time-series comparisons. SETTING: U.S. IM residencies. PARTICIPANTS: 59 835 IM residents completing residencies during 2008 to 2013 and 2015 to 2020. INTERVENTION: Adoption of the Milestone ratings system. MEASUREMENTS: Pre-Milestone (2008 to 2013) and post-Milestone (2015 to 2020) bias was estimated as differences in standardized knowledge ratings between U.S.-born and non-U.S.-born minoritized groups versus non-Latino U.S.-born White (NLW) residents, with adjustment for performance on the American Board of Internal Medicine IM certification examination and other physician characteristics. Interrupted time-series analysis measured deviations from pre-Milestone linear bias trends. RESULTS: During the pre-Milestone period, ratings biases against minoritized groups were large (-0.40 SDs [95% CI, -0.48 to -0.31 SDs; P < 0.001] for URiM residents, -0.24 SDs [CI, -0.30 to -0.18 SDs; P < 0.001] for U.S.-born Asian residents, and -0.36 SDs [CI, -0.45 to -0.27 SDs; P < 0.001] for non-U.S.-born Asian residents). These estimates decreased to less than -0.15 SDs after adoption of Milestone ratings for all groups except U.S.-born Black residents, among whom substantial (though lower) bias persisted (-0.26 SDs [CI, -0.36 to -0.17 SDs; P < 0.001]). Substantial deviations from pre-Milestone linear bias trends coincident with adoption of Milestone ratings were also observed. LIMITATIONS: Unobserved variables correlated with ratings bias and Milestone ratings adoption, changes in identification of race/ethnicity, and generalizability to Milestones 2.0. CONCLUSION: Knowledge ratings bias against URiM and Asian residents was ameliorated with the adoption of the Milestone ratings system. However, substantial ratings bias against U.S.-born Black residents persisted. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Experimental Evidence on the Effectiveness of Nonexperts for Improving Vaccine Demand.

We experimentally vary signals and senders to identify which combination will increase vaccine demand among a disadvantaged population in the United States-Black and White men without a college education. Our main finding is that laypeople (nonexpert concordant senders) are most effective at promoting vaccination, particularly among those least willing to become vaccinated. This finding points to a trade-off between the higher qualifications of experts on the one hand and the lower social proximity to low-socioeconomic-status populations on the other hand, which may undermine credibility in settings of low trust.

REPRESENTATION AND EXTRAPOLATION: EVIDENCE FROM CLINICAL TRIALS.

This article examines the consequences and causes of low enrollment of Black patients in clinical trials. We develop a simple model of similarity-based extrapolation that predicts that evidence is more relevant for decision-making by physicians and patients when it is more representative of the group being treated. This generates the key result that the perceived benefit of a medicine for a group depends not only on the average benefit from a trial but also on the share of patients from that group who were enrolled in the trial. In survey experiments, we find that physicians who care for Black patients are more willing to prescribe drugs tested in representative samples, an effect substantial enough to close observed gaps in the prescribing rates of new medicines. Black patients update more on drug efficacy when the sample that the drug is tested on is more representative, reducing Black-white patient gaps in beliefs about whether the drug will work as described. Despite these benefits of representative data, our framework and evidence suggest that those who have benefited more from past medical breakthroughs are less costly to enroll in the present, leading to persistence in who is represented in the evidence base.

Effect of an Intensive Food-as-Medicine Program on Health and Health Care Use: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Food-as-medicine programs are becoming increasingly common, and rigorous evidence is needed regarding their effects on health. Objective: To test whether an intensive food-as-medicine program for patients with diabetes and food insecurity improves glycemic control and affects health care use. Design, Setting, and Participants: This stratified randomized clinical trial using a wait list design was conducted from April 19, 2019, to September 16, 2022, with patients followed up for 1 year. Patients were randomly assigned to either participate in the program immediately (treatment group) or 6 months later (control group). The trial took place at 2 sites, 1 rural and 1 urban, of a large, integrated health system in the mid-Atlantic region of the US. Eligibility required a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, a hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level of 8% or higher, food insecurity, and residence within the service area of the participating clinics. Intervention: The comprehensive program provided healthy groceries for 10 meals per week for an entire household, plus dietitian consultations, nurse evaluations, health coaching, and diabetes education. The program duration was typically 1 year. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was HbA1c level at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included other biometric measures, health care use, and self-reported diet and healthy behaviors, at both 6 months and 12 months. Results: Of 3712 patients assessed for eligibility, 3168 were contacted, 1064 were deemed eligible, 500 consented to participate and were randomized, and 465 (mean [SD] age, 54.6 [11.8] years; 255 [54.8%] female) completed the study. Of those patients, 349 (mean [SD] age, 55.4 [11.2] years; 187 [53.6%] female) had laboratory test results at 6 months after enrollment. Both the treatment (n = 170) and control (n = 179) groups experienced a substantial decline in HbA1c levels at 6 months, resulting in a nonsignificant, between-group adjusted mean difference in HbA1c levels of -0.10 (95% CI, -0.46 to 0.25; P = .57). Access to the program increased preventive health care, including more mean (SD) dietitian visits (2.7 [1.8] vs 0.6 [1.3] visits in the treatment and control groups, respectively), patients with active prescription drug orders for metformin (134 [58.26] vs 119 [50.64]) and glucagon-like peptide 1 medications (114 [49.56] vs 83 [35.32]), and participants reporting an improved diet from 1 year earlier (153 of 164 [93.3%] vs 132 of 171 [77.2%]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, an intensive food-as-medicine program increased engagement with preventive health care but did not improve glycemic control compared with usual care among adult participants. Programs targeted to individuals with elevated biomarkers require a control group to demonstrate effectiveness to account for improvements that occur without the intervention. Additional research is needed to design food-as-medicine programs that improve health. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03718832.