Neighborhood-level social determinants of health burden among adolescent and young adult cancer patients and impact on overall survival.

BACKGROUND: Neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation has been linked to adverse health outcomes, yet it is unclear whether neighborhood-level social determinants of health (SDOH) measures affect overall survival in adolescent and young adult patients with cancer. METHODS: This study used a diverse cohort of adolescent and young adult patients with cancer (N = 10 261) seen at MD Anderson Cancer Center. Zip codes were linked to Area Deprivation Index (ADI) values, a validated neighborhood-level SDOH measure, with higher ADI values representing worse SDOH. RESULTS: ADI was statistically significantly worse (P < .050) for Black (61.7) and Hispanic (65.3) patients than for White patients (51.2). Analysis of ADI by cancer type showed statistically significant differences, mainly driven by worse ADI in patients with cervical cancer (62.3) than with other cancers. In multivariable models including sex, age at diagnosis, cancer diagnosis, and race and ethnicity, risk of shorter survival for people residing in neighborhoods with the least favorable ADI quartile was greater than for individuals in the most favorable ADI quartile (hazard ratio = 1.09, 95% confidence interval = 1.00 to 1.19, P = .043). CONCLUSION: Adolescent and young adult patients with cancer and the worst ADI values experienced a nearly 10% increase in risk of dying than patients with more favorable ADI values. This effect was strongest among White adolescent and young adult survivors. Although the magnitude of the effect of ADI on survival was moderate, the presence of a relationship between neighborhood-level SDOH and survival among patients who received care at a tertiary cancer center suggests that ADI is a meaningful predictor of survival. These findings provide intriguing evidence for potential interventions aimed at supporting adolescent and young adult patients with cancer from disadvantaged neighborhoods.

Assessing competencies during education in psychiatry.

The utilization of competencies in medical education is relatively recent. In 1999 the United States Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) established six main competencies. Since then, the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology have approved a specific list of competencies for their specialities in each of the ACGME's core competency areas. Assessment of competencies in both medical students and residents can be achieved through such methods as structured case discussion, direct observation, simulation, standardized patients, and 360-degree assessments, etc. Each assessment methodology has specific applications in the discipline of psychiatry. This paper reviews the different methods for assessing competencies with specific examples in psychiatric education. It is not intended as a comprehensive review of all assessment methods, but to provide examples and strategies to guide psychiatric educators in their practice. Students and residents were intentionally separated because there are differences in the teaching goals and objectives, and thus in the assessment purposes and design. Students are general, undifferentiated physicians-in-training who need to learn about psychiatric nosology, examinations, and treatment. Residents are mental health professionals who need more in-depth supervision in order to hone skills in all the specialized areas that arise in psychiatric practices, making supervision a vital part of residency programs.