Application of a comprehensive disability measure: Disability prevalence among US Veterans and non-veterans from the National Health Interview Survey Data from 2015 to 2018.

BACKGROUND: Current measures of condition-specific disabilities or those capturing only severe limitations may underestimate disability prevalence, including among Veterans. OBJECTIVES: To develop a comprehensive measure to characterize and compare disabilities among US Veterans and non-Veterans. METHODS: Using 2015-2018 pooled cross-sectional National Health Interview Survey data, we compared the frequency and survey-weighted prevalence of non-mutually exclusive sensory, social, and physical disabilities by Veteran status. We developed a measure for and examined the frequency and survey-weighted prevalence of eight mutually exclusive disability categories-sensory only; physical only; social only; sensory and physical; social and sensory; physical and social; and sensory, social, and physical. RESULTS: Among 118,818 NHIS respondents, 11,943 were Veterans. Veterans had a greater prevalence than non-Veterans of non-mutually exclusive physical [52.01% vs. 34.68% (p < 0.001)], sensory [44.47% vs. 21.79% (p < 0.001)], and social [17.20% vs. 11.61% (p < 0.001)] disabilities (after survey-weighting). The most frequently reported mutually exclusive disability categories for both Veterans and non-Veterans were sensory and physical (19.20% and 8.02%, p < 0.001) and physical only (16.24% and 15.69%, p = 0.216) (after survey-weighting). The least frequently reported mutually exclusive disability categories for both Veterans and non-Veterans were social only (0.31% and 0.44%, p = 0.136) and sensory and social (0.32% and 0.20%, respectively, 0.026) (after survey-weighting). CONCLUSIONS: Our disability metric demonstrates that Veterans have a higher disability prevalence than non-Veterans, and a higher prevalence than previously reported. Public policy and future research should consider this broader definition of disability to more fully account for the variable needs of people with disabilities.

Rolling out PRIDE in All Who Served: Barriers and Facilitators for Sites Implementing an LGBTQ+ Health Education Group for Military Veterans.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) PRIDE in All Who Served health education group (PRIDE) was developed to improve health equity and access to care for military veterans who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and/or other sexual/gender-diverse identities (LGBTQ+). This 10-week program rapidly spread to over 30 VHA facilities in 4 years. Veterans receiving PRIDE experience improved LGBTQ+ identity-related resilience and reductions in suicide attempt likelihood. Despite PRIDE's rapid spread across facilities, information is lacking on implementation determinants. The current study's goal was to clarify determinants of PRIDE group implementation and sustainment. METHODS: A purposive sample of VHA staff (N = 19) with experience delivering or implementing PRIDE completed teleconference interviews January-April 2021. The interview guide was informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Rapid qualitative matrix analysis was completed with methods to ensure rigor (e.g., triangulation and investigator reflexivity). RESULTS: Key barriers and facilitators of PRIDE implementation were heavily related to facility inner setting (what is happening inside the facility), including implementation readiness (e.g., leadership support for LGBTQ+-affirming programming, access to LGBTQ+-affirming care training) and facility culture (e.g., systemic anti-LGBTQ+ stigma). Several implementation process facilitators enhanced engagement at sites, such as a centrally facilitated PRIDE learning collaborative and a formal process of contracting/training for new PRIDE sites. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: Although aspects of the outer setting and larger societal influences were mentioned, the majority of factors impacting implementation success were at the VHA facility level and therefore may be more readily addressable through tailored implementation support. The importance of LGBTQ+ equity at the facility level indicates that implementation facilitation should ideally address institutional equity in addition to implementation logistics. Combining effective interventions with attention to local implementation needs will be required before LGBTQ+ veterans in all areas will benefit from PRIDE and other health equity-focused interventions.

Let's Talk About Firearms: Perspectives of Older Veterans and VA Clinicians on Universal and Dementia-Specific Firearm Safety Discussions.

OBJECTIVES: Veterans experience high rates of fatal and non-fatal firearm injuries. This risk may be compounded among Veterans who are rural-residing, aging, and/or experiencing cognitive decline or dementia. Firearm safety discussions are not broadly implemented across Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare settings due, in part, to concerns of causing Veterans to disengage from care. This study examines perceptions about firearm safety discussions to inform healthcare-based harm-reduction efforts. METHODS: We conducted interviews with 34 Veterans (median age 70) and 22 clinicians from four VA facilities that treat high rates of rural patients with firearm-related injuries. RESULTS: Most Veterans accepted the idea of universal firearm safety discussions at the VA. Some reported they might not be forthright in such discussions, but raising the topic would not stop them from engaging with VA care. Veterans and clinicians unanimously endorsed firearm safety discussions for older patients experiencing cognitive decline or dementia. CONCLUSIONS: VA patients and clinicians are amenable to firearm safety discussions during healthcare visits and especially endorse the need for such discussions among high-risk populations. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Universal firearm safety discussions could be incorporated into standard VA practice, particularly for Veterans experiencing cognitive decline or dementia, without risking Veteran disengagement from care.

Framing the front door: co-creating a home health care assessment of service need for children with disabilities.

This paper details the co-creation of a home health assessment tool for children with disabilities in the context of state-level systems change from traditional Medicaid to Medicaid managed care. A community based, sequential, mixed methods design was used to co-develop the assessment. A process evaluation highlighted community members' experiences with Medicaid managed care. Community members identified issues related to appropriateness of items and loss of services and recommended a dual assessment process to address concerns. Results indicated that 72% of items functioned well. Community members felt that organizational policies and the accuracy of clinical information obtained during assessment processes led directly to loss of services. Co-creating the assessment with caregivers of children with disabilities led to a comprehensive, person-centered, and holistic tool. The process buttressed several concrete systems and policy actions to improve home health care for children with disabilities in Medicaid managed care.

Meeting Texas Nursing Workforce Needs Through Recruitment and Retention Initiatives.

Evidence demonstrates health inequities can be ameliorated by a workforce whose diversity reflects the population served. The diversity of the Texas nursing workforce, however, is not reflective of the Texas population. This article reports on a project to recruit and retain minority nurses in Texas. The project goals were to improve enrollment for minority students, specifically Hispanic students, in an online South Texas baccalaureate nursing program (traditional BSN, second-degree BSN, and RN to BSN); facilitate student success; and promote student satisfaction. These goals were successfully achieved at one academic institution.

Mental health-related hospitalizations among adolescents and emerging adults with autism in the United States: A retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of national hospital discharge data.

LAY ABSTRACT: Autistic young people are more likely to have mental health conditions, like depression and bipolar disorder, than people without autism. These mental health issues sometimes lead to hospitalizations, which can be expensive and traumatic. Because of this, we wanted to understand mental health-related hospitalizations among autistic young people aged 10-20. We found that the main mental health reasons for the hospitalization of autistic young people were neurodevelopmental, disruptive, depressive, and bipolar disorders. These hospitalizations cost an average of US$7401.23 per stay, for a total of US$106 million in service delivery costs in 2016. Mental health-related hospitalizations were compared between young people with autism, young people with complex and chronic conditions, and young people with no chronic conditions. Autistic young people were almost 11 times more likely to be hospitalized for mental health reasons than young people with complex and chronic conditions, and two times more likely than young people with no complex and chronic conditions. We believe the United States needs better community-based mental health care for young people with autism.

Health Care Disparities Among Autistic LGBTQ+ People.

Background: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer (LGBTQ+) people and disabled people experience disparities in access to health care compared with others. However, we have yet to understand how health care disparities may be further exacerbated at the intersection of disability and LGBTQ+ identity, particularly among autistic people. Objectives: The primary goals of this study were to (1) examine differences in unmet health care needs and health status between LGBTQ+ autistic people and straight/cisgender autistic people and (2) explore how state policies and demographics predict the unmet health care needs of the autistic LGBTQ+ people. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis using data from the 2019 National Survey on Health and Disability that included a subsample of autistic participants, with 62 LGBTQ+ adults and 58 straight/cisgender adults. To address our first study goal, we used an independent samples t-test, and to address our second study goal, we used Poisson regression. Results: The LGBTQ+ group reported significantly more days of poor physical and mental health, more co-occurring diagnoses, and more unmet health care needs than the straight/cisgender group. For LGBTQ+ people, protective state health care laws and a lower income resulted in significantly more health care needs being met. Conclusions: Findings from this study suggest that the intersection of an LGBTQ+ identity and autism is associated with greater disparities in physical and mental health as well as unmet health care needs; however, state policies prohibiting discrimination of LGBTQ+ people may act as a protective factor and result in fewer unmet health care needs. Future research should examine additional structural factors that may mitigate health inequities for autistic LGBTQ+ people.

Why is this an important issue?: More people in the autistic community identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer (LGBTQ+) as compared with the general population. Previous research described poorer health outcomes and issues in accessing health care for LGBTQ+ people. We need to understand how identifying as both autistic and LGBTQ+ is related to health outcomes and getting health care needs met. This is important information to improve future health care access and reduce health care issues. What was the purpose of this study?: We wanted to see whether there were differences between autistic/LGBTQ+ people and autistic/straight/cisgender people in accessing health care and health status. We also wanted to understand what factors contributed to unmet health care needs for autistic/LGBTQ+ people. What did the researchers do?: Our team used data from the second wave of the National Survey on Health and Disability (NSHD) fielded from October 2019 through January 2020. The NSHD sample included 2175 disabled participants, and 120 participants of the sample self-identified as autistic. We compared responses of autistic/LGBTQ+ people with autistic/straight/cisgender respondents. We compared these two groups on responses related to the number of good mental and physical health days, number of unmet health care needs, and number of additional diagnoses. We also looked at whether a person's income, location, race, or ethnicity, as well as whether state laws that supported LGBTQ+ health care related to the increased unmet health care needs of the LGBTQ+ group. What were the results of the study?: The results suggested that the autistic/LGBTQ+ group reported fewer good health days, more unmet health care needs, and more diagnoses. The authors also found that state-wide health care laws that protected LGBTQ+ people related to more health care needs being met. LGBTQ+ people with a lower income also had fewer unmet health care needs. What do these findings add to what was already known?: These findings are like other studies suggesting that identifying as autistic and LGBTQ+ results in more unmet health care needs and poorer health status. Our study adds to what is already known by exploring how other factors relate to the increased unmet health care needs among autistic/LGBTQ+ people. What are potential weaknesses in the study?: The NSHD subsample was small that may affect the study findings. Our sample also lacked diversity and primarily included White non-Hispanic/non-Latine participants, and those living in urban areas. The lack of diversity limits the generalizability of our findings. There are also many other factors (e.g., culture and provider knowledge) that may relate to unmet health care needs in autistic/LGBTQ+ people. Future research should investigate additional factors related to unmet health care needs. How will these findings help autistic adults now or in the future?: The findings are important because few research studies have focused on health care access among autistic/LGBTQ+ people in the United States. This study indicates the health care system is not supporting positive health outcomes and health care needs of autistic/LGBTQ+ adults. We need to continue to develop ways to support training of providers to reduce unmet health care needs and support better health outcomes.

Gender Identity, Disability, and Unmet Healthcare Needs among Disabled People Living in the Community in the United States.

Disabled adults and transgender people in the United States face multiple compounding and marginalizing forces that result in unmet healthcare needs. Yet, gender identity among disabled people has not been explored, especially beyond binary categories of gender. Using cross-sectional survey data, we explored the rates of disability types and the odds of unmet healthcare needs among transgender people with disabilities compared to cisgender people with disabilities. The rates of disability type were similar between transgender and cisgender participants with two significant differences. Fewer transgender participants identified physical or mobility disability as their main disability compared to cisgender participants (12.31%/8 vs. 27.68/581, p < 0.01), and more transgender participants selected developmental disability as their main disability compared to cisgender participants (13.85%/9 vs. 3.67%/77, p < 0.001). After adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics, the odds of disabled transgender participants reporting an unmet need were higher for every unmet need except for preventative services.

Hospitalizations Among Children and Youth With Autism in the United States: Frequency, Characteristics, and Costs.

National estimates of hospitalization diagnoses and costs were determined using the 2016 HCUP Kids' Inpatient Database. Children and youth with autism were hospitalized over 45,000 times at over $560 million in costs and 260,000 inpatient days. The most frequent principal diagnoses for hospitalizations of children and youth with autism were epilepsy, mental health conditions, pneumonia, asthma, and gastrointestinal disorders, which resulted in almost $200 million in costs and 150,000 inpatient days. Mental health diagnoses accounted for 24.8% of hospitalizations, an estimated $82 million in costs, and approximately 94,000 inpatient days. Children and youth with autism were more likely hospitalized for epilepsy, mental health diagnoses, and gastrointestinal disorders, and less likely for pneumonia and asthma compared to other children and youth.