Nativity differences in socioeconomic barriers and healthcare delays among cancer survivors in the All of Us cohort.

PURPOSE: We aimed to assess whether nativity differences in socioeconomic (SES) barriers and health literacy were associated with healthcare delays among US cancer survivors. METHODS: "All of Us" survey data were analyzed among adult participants ever diagnosed with cancer. A binary measure of healthcare delay (1+ delays versus no delays) was created. Health literacy was assessed using the Brief Health Literacy Screen. A composite measure of SES barriers (education, employment, housing, income, and insurance statuses) was created as 0, 1, 2, or 3+. Multivariable logistic regression model tested the associations of (1) SES barriers and health literacy with healthcare delays, and (2) whether nativity modified this relationship. RESULTS: Median participant age was 64 years (n = 10,020), with 8% foreign-born and 18% ethnic minorities. Compared to survivors with no SES barriers, those with 3+ had higher likelihood of experiencing healthcare delays (OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.84, 2.58). For every additional barrier, the odds of healthcare delays were greater among foreign-born (1.72, 1.43, 2.08) than US-born (1.27, 1.21, 1.34). For every 1-unit increase in health literacy among US-born, the odds of healthcare delay decreased by 9% (0.91, 0.89, 0.94). CONCLUSION: We found that SES barriers to healthcare delays have a greater impact among foreign-born than US-born cancer survivors. Higher health literacy may mitigate healthcare delays among US cancer survivors. Healthcare providers, systems and policymakers should assess and address social determinants of health and promote health literacy as a way to minimize healthcare delays among both foreign- and US-born cancer survivors.

Racial and ethnic disparities in self-reported general and mental health status among colorectal cancer survivors: impact of sociodemographic factors and implications for mortality-a SEER-CAHPS study.

PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcomes are recognized as strong predictors of cancer prognosis. This study examines racial and ethnic differences in self-reported general health status (GHS) and mental health status (MHS) among patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). METHODS: A retrospective analysis of Medicare beneficiaries between 1998 and 2011 with non-distant CRC who underwent curative resection and completed a Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey within 6-36 months of CRC diagnosis. Analysis included a stepwise logistic regression to examine the relationship between race and ethnicity and fair or poor health status, and a proportional hazards model to determine the mortality risk associated with fair or poor health status. RESULTS: Of 1867 patients, Non-Hispanic Black (OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.06-2.28) and Hispanic (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.04-2.11) patients had higher unadjusted odds for fair or poor GHS compared to Non-Hispanic White patients, also Hispanic patients had higher unadjusted odds for fair or poor MHS (OR 1.92, 95% CI 1.23-3.01). These relationships persisted after adjusting for clinical factors but were attenuated after subsequently adjusting for sociodemographic factors. Compared to those reporting good to excellent health status, patients reporting fair or poor GHS or MHS had an increased mortality risk (OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.31-1.76 and OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.34-1.99, respectively). CONCLUSION: Racial and ethnic differences in GHS and MHS reported after CRC diagnosis are mainly driven by sociodemographic factors and reflect a higher risk of mortality. Identifying unmet biopsychosocial needs is necessary to promote equitable care.

Protocol for a scoping review of factors associated with disparities in clinical provision of deep brain stimulation.

INTRODUCTION: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) can be used to treat several neurological and psychiatric conditions such as Parkinson's disease, epilepsy and obsessive-compulsive disorder; however, limited work has been done to assess the disparities in DBS access and implementation. The goal of this scoping review is to identify sources of disparity in the clinical provision of DBS. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A scoping review will be conducted based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-extension for Scoping Reviews methodology. Relevant studies will be identified from databases including MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science, as well as reference lists from retained articles. Initial search dates were in January 2023, with the study still ongoing. An initial screening of the titles and abstracts of potentially eligible studies will be completed, with relevant studies collected for full-text review. The principal investigators and coauthors will then independently review all full-text articles meeting the inclusion criteria. Data will be extracted and collected in table format. Finally, results will be synthesised in a table and narrative report. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No institutional board review or approval is necessary for the proposed scoping review. The findings will be submitted for publication to relevant peer-reviewed journals and conferences. SCOPING REVIEW REGISTRATION: This protocol has been registered prospectively on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/cxvhu).

Racial/Ethnic Disparities: Discrimination's Impact on Health-Related Quality of Life-An All of Us Cancer Survivors' Cross-sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Discrimination is associated with worse mental and physical health outcomes. However, the associations among cancer survivors are limited. OBJECTIVE: We examined whether discrimination is associated with HRQoL and whether adjusting for it reduces racial/ethnic disparities in HRQoL among cancer survivors. METHODS: Cross-sectional data from adult cancer survivors who completed surveys on discrimination in the medical settings (DMS), everyday perceived discrimination (PD), and HRQoL in the "All of Us" Program from 2018 to 2022 were assessed. We created a binary indicator for fair-to-poor vs. good-to-excellent physical health and mental health. PD and DMS scores were a continuous measure with higher scores reflecting more discrimination. Multivariable logistic regression models tested whether DMS and PD are associated with HRQoL and whether they differently affect the association between race/ethnicity and HRQoL. RESULTS: The sample (N = 16,664) of cancer survivors was predominantly White (86%) and female (59%), with a median age of 69. Every 5-unit increase in DMS and PD scores was associated with greater odds of fair-to-poor physical health (DMS: OR [95%CI] = 1.66 [1.55, 1.77], PD: 1.33 [1.27, 1.40]) and mental health (DMS: 1.57 [1.47, 1.69], PD: 1.33 [1.27, 1.39]). After adjusting for DMS or PD, Black and Hispanic survivors had a decreased likelihood of fair-to-poor physical health and mental health (decrease estimate range: - 6 to - 30%) compared to White survivors. This effect was greater for Black survivors when adjusting for PD, as the odds of fair-to-poor mental health compared to White survivors were no longer statistically significant (1.78 [1.32, 2.34] vs 1.22 [0.90, 1.64]). CONCLUSION: Experiences of discrimination are associated with lower HRQoL and reducing it may mitigate racial/ethnic disparities in HRQoL.