Is Primary Care Patient Experience Associated with Provider-Patient Language Concordance and Use of Interpreters for Spanish-preferring Patients: A Systematic Literature Review.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare provided by a bilingual provider or with the assistance of an interpreter improves care quality; however, their associations with patient experience are unknown. We reviewed associations of patient experience with provider-patient language concordance (LC) and use of interpreters for Spanish-preferring patients. METHOD: We reviewed articles from academic databases 2005-2023 following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and Joanna Briggs Institute Checklists to rate study quality. We reviewed 217 (of 2193) articles, yielding 17 for inclusion. RESULTS: Of the 17 included articles, most articles focused on primary (n = 6 studies) or pediatric care (n = 5). All were cross-sectional, collecting data by self-administered surveys (n = 7) or interviews (n = 4). Most assessed the relationship between LC or interpreter use and patient experience by cross-sectional associations (n = 13). Two compared subgroups, and two provided descriptive insights into the conversational content (provider-interpreter-patient). None evaluated interventions, so evidence on effective strategies is lacking. LC for Spanish-preferring patients was a mix of null findings (n = 4) and associations with better patient experience (n = 3) (e.g., receiving diet/exercise counseling and better provider communication). Evidence on interpreter use indicated better (n = 2), worse (n = 2), and no association (n = 2) with patient experience. Associations between Spanish-language preference and patient experience were not significant (n = 5) or indicated worse experience (n = 4) (e.g., long waits, problems getting appointments, and not understanding nurses). CONCLUSION: LC is associated with better patient experience. Using interpreters is associated with better patient experience but only with high-quality interpreters. Strategies are needed to eliminate disparities and enhance communication for all Spanish-preferring primary care patients, whether with a bilingual provider or an interpreter.

Mental health among first-generation college students: Findings from the national Healthy Minds Study, 2018-2021.

A mounting body of evidence reveals that college mental health outcomes are worsening over time. That said, little is known about the mental health needs of the nearly eight million first-generation students in U.S. postsecondary education. The present study uses population-level data from the national Healthy Minds Study to compare prevalence of mental health symptoms and use of services for first-generation and continuing-generation students from 2018-2021. The sample includes 192,202 students at 277 campuses, with 17.3% being first-generation. Findings reveal a high prevalence of mental health symptoms among both first-generation and continuing-generation students. Controlling for symptoms, FG students had significantly lower rates of mental health service use. Just 32.8% of first-generation students with symptoms received therapy in the past year, relative to 42.8% among continuing-generation students, and this disparity widened during the COVID-19 pandemic. Findings have important implications for the design and implementation of higher education policies, mental health delivery systems, college persistence and retention initiatives, and public health efforts in school settings.

Inequities in COVID-19 vaccine and booster coverage across Massachusetts ZIP codes after the emergence of Omicron: A population-based cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Inequities in Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine and booster coverage may contribute to future disparities in morbidity and mortality within and between Massachusetts (MA) communities. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a population-based cross-sectional study of primary series vaccination and booster coverage 18 months into the general population vaccine rollout. We obtained public-use data on residents vaccinated and boosted by ZIP code (and by age group: 5 to 19, 20 to 39, 40 to 64, 65+) from MA Department of Public Health, as of October 10, 2022. We constructed population denominators for postal ZIP codes by aggregating census tract population estimates from the 2015-2019 American Community Survey. We excluded nonresidential ZIP codes and the smallest ZIP codes containing 1% of the state's population. We mapped variation in ZIP code-level primary series vaccine and booster coverage and used regression models to evaluate the association of these measures with ZIP code-level socioeconomic and demographic characteristics. Because age is strongly associated with COVID-19 severity and vaccine access/uptake, we assessed whether observed socioeconomic and racial/ethnic inequities persisted after adjusting for age composition and plotted age-specific vaccine and booster coverage by deciles of ZIP code characteristics. We analyzed data on 418 ZIP codes. We observed wide geographic variation in primary series vaccination and booster rates, with marked inequities by ZIP code-level education, median household income, essential worker share, and racial/ethnic composition. In age-stratified analyses, primary series vaccine coverage was very high among the elderly. However, we found large inequities in vaccination rates among younger adults and children, and very large inequities in booster rates for all age groups. In multivariable regression models, each 10 percentage point increase in "percent college educated" was associated with a 5.1 (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.9 to 6.3, p < 0.001) percentage point increase in primary series vaccine coverage and a 5.4 (95% CI 4.5 to 6.4, p < 0.001) percentage point increase in booster coverage. Although ZIP codes with higher "percent Black/Latino/Indigenous" and higher "percent essential workers" had lower vaccine coverage (-0.8, 95% CI -1.3 to -0.3, p < 0.01; -5.5, 95% CI -7.3 to -3.8, p < 0.001), these associations became strongly positive after adjusting for age and education (1.9, 95% CI 1.0 to 2.8, p < 0.001; 4.8, 95% CI 2.6 to 7.1, p < 0.001), consistent with high demand for vaccines among Black/Latino/Indigenous and essential worker populations within age and education groups. Strong positive associations between "median household income" and vaccination were attenuated after adjusting for age. Limitations of the study include imprecision of the estimated population denominators, lack of individual-level sociodemographic data, and potential for residential ZIP code misreporting in vaccination data. CONCLUSIONS: Eighteen months into MA's general population vaccine rollout, there remained large inequities in COVID-19 primary series vaccine and booster coverage across MA ZIP codes, particularly among younger age groups. Disparities in vaccination coverage by racial/ethnic composition were statistically explained by differences in age and education levels, which may mediate the effects of structural racism on vaccine uptake. Efforts to increase booster coverage are needed to limit future socioeconomic and racial/ethnic disparities in COVID-19 morbidity and mortality.

Provider and Staff Feedback on Screening for Social and Behavioral Determinants of Health for Pediatric Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Screening and referral for Social and Behavioral Determinants of Health (SDOH) are increasingly recommended in clinical guidelines and consensus statements. It is important to understand barriers and facilitators to implementation of standardized SDOH screening and referral practices, as well as the scope of current existing SDOH screening. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods study to understand the current state of SDOH screening and to assess the barriers and facilitators to implementing a standardized SDOH screening and referral practice in Boston community health centers (CHCs) for pediatric patients. We requested all SDOH screening documents from 15 Boston CHCs and conducted provider and staff focus groups at intervention sites of an SDOH implementation pilot in Boston. RESULTS: All CHCs screened in some form for SDOH, but there was no agreement on which domains to screen. Participating CHCs screened for a mean of 8 SDOH domains (range, 5 to 16). Overall, 16 SDOH domains emerged. From the focus groups, 5 themes emerged: 1) provider perspectives, 2) work flow, 3) prior experience, 4) site resources and staffing, and 5) sustainability. There was little agreement among participants within each theme, as all were seen as barriers and facilitators depending on the respondent. DISCUSSION: This study highlights the various SDOH screening methods currently used in Boston CHCs, and the need for workflow and process individualization of SDOH screening and referral. Providers and clinical staff should be part of the discussion when implementing SDOH screening and referral procedures to ensure appropriate work flow, staff buy-in, and to maximize resources available.

Community engagement in patient-centered outcomes research: Benefits, barriers, and measurement.

INTRODUCTION: This study employed the Delphi method, an exploratory method used for group consensus building, to determine the benefits and challenges associated with community engagement in patient-centered outcomes research. METHODS: A series of email surveys were sent to the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI)-funded researchers (n = 103) in New England. Consensus was achieved through gathering themes and engaging participants in ranking their level of agreement over three rounds. In round one, participant responses were coded thematically and then tallied. In round two participants were asked to state their level of agreement with each of the themes using a Likert scale. Finally, in round three, the group was asked to rank the round two themes based on potential impact. RESULTS: Results suggested the greatest benefit of community engagement is that it brings multiple perspectives to the table, with 92% ranking it as the first or second most important contribution. Time was ranked as the most significant barrier to engaging community. Strategies to overcome barriers to community engagement include engaging key stakeholders early in the research, being kind and respectful and spending time with stakeholders. The most significant finding was that no researchers reported having specific measures to evaluate community engagement. CONCLUSION: Community engagement can enhance both research relevance and methodology when researchers are engaged in meaningful collaborations. Advancing the science of community engagement will require the development of evaluation metrics to examine the multiple domains of partnership.