Discrimination in Medical Settings across Populations: Evidence From the All of Us Research Program.

INTRODUCTION: Discrimination in medical settings (DMS) contributes to healthcare disparities in the United States, but few studies have determined the extent of DMS in a large national sample and across different populations. This study estimated the national prevalence of DMS and described demographic and health-related characteristics associated with experiencing DMS in seven different situations. METHODS: Survey data from 41,875 adults participating in the All of Us Research Program collected in 2021-2022 and logistic regression were used to examine the association between sociodemographic and health-related characteristics and self-reported DMS among adults engaged with a healthcare provider within the past 12 months. Statistical analysis was performed in 2023-2024. RESULTS: About 36.89% of adults reported having experienced at least one DMS situation. Adults with relative social and medical disadvantages had higher prevalence of experiencing DMS. Compared to their counterparts, respondents with higher odds of experiencing DMS in at least one situation identified as female, non-Hispanic Black, having at least some college, living in the South, renter, having other living arrangement, being publicly insured, not having a usual source of care, having multiple chronic conditions, having any disability, and reporting fair or poor health, p<0.05. CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate a high prevalence of DMS, particularly among some population groups. Characterizing DMS may be a valuable tool for identifying populations at risk within the healthcare system and optimizing the overall patient care experience. Implementing relevant policies remains an essential strategy for mitigating the prevalence of DMS and reducing healthcare disparities.

Accelerating integration of tobacco use treatment in the context of lung cancer screening: Relevance and application of implementation science to achieving policy and practice.

Based on the findings from the National Lung Screening Trial, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends annual low dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening (LCS) among high-risk adults. Approximately 54% of individuals seeking LCS report current cigarette smoking. Effective smoking cessation interventions, offered at the time of LCS, enhances the health benefits of screening that are attributable to reductions in lung cancer overall and tobacco-related mortality. Considering these data, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' (CMS) 2015 decision to cover LCS with LDCT required that radiology imaging facilities make tobacco cessation interventions available for people who smoke. In February 2022, CMS reversed their 2015 coverage requirement for delivering tobacco use treatment at the time of LDCT; CMS retained the requirement for counseling during the shared decision-making visit prior to the exam. The policy change does not diminish the importance of offering high-quality tobacco cessation services in conjunction with routine LDCT for LCS. However, LCS programs face a range of barriers to implementing tobacco use treatment in their settings. As a result, implementation has lagged. Closing the "evidence to practice" gap is the focus of implementation science, a field that offers a set of rigorous methods and a systematic approach to identifying and overcoming contextual barriers to implementing evidence-based guidelines in a range of clinical settings. In this paper, we describe how implementation science frameworks and methods can be used to help guide LCS programs in their efforts to integrate tobacco use treatment and discuss policy changes needed to further facilitate the delivery of TUT as an essential component of the LCS process.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the United States. There is strong evidence, from a large number of international studies, that lung cancer screening for people who meet specific criteria, can reduce lung cancer-related deaths. Based on these findings, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid decided to provide insurance coverage for lung cancer screening for eligible patients. This includes people aged 50­80 years who have a 20 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years. Over 50% of people who seek lung cancer screening report current cigarette smoking. Studies show that offering these smokers support to quit at the time of screening can further increase survival rates by reducing both deaths from lung cancer and other tobacco-related diseases. Unfortunately, lung cancer screening programs do not consistently provide effective treatments to help smokers quit. This is a missed opportunity to engage smokers in quitting when the health risk of tobacco use is most salient, and therefore smokers may be more willing to engage in tobacco use treatment. This paper provides detailed guidance on how programs can implement high quality tobacco use treatment services in conjunction with lung cancer screening.

Generational differences in beliefs about COVID-19 vaccines.

Vaccine uptake variation across demographic groups remains a public health barrier to overcome the coronavirus pandemic despite substantial evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against severe illness and death. Generational cohorts differ in their experience with historical and public health events, which may contribute to variation in beliefs about COVID-19 vaccines. Nationally representative longitudinal data (December 20, 2020 to July 23, 2021) from the Understanding America Study (UAS) COVID-19 tracking survey (N = 7279) and multilevel logistic regression were used to investigate whether generational cohorts differ in COVID-19 vaccine beliefs. Regression models adjusted for wave, socioeconomic and demographic characteristics, political affiliation, and trusted source of information about COVID-19. Birth-year cutoffs define the generational cohorts: Silent (1945 and earlier), Boomer (1946-1964), Gen X (1965-1980), Millennial (1981-1996), and Gen Z (1997-2012). Compared to Boomers, Silents had a lower likelihood of believing that COVID-19 vaccines have many known harmful side effects (OR = 0.52, 95%CI = 0.35-0.74) and that they may lead to illness and death (OR = 0.53, 95%CI = 0.37-0.77). Compared to Boomers, Silents had a higher likelihood of believing that the vaccines provide important benefits to society (OR = 2.27, 95%CI = 1.34-3.86) and that they are useful and effective (OR = 1.97, 95%CI = 1.17-3.30). Results for Gen Z are similar to those reported for Silents. Beliefs about COVID-19 vaccines markedly differ across generations. This is consistent with the idea of generational imprinting-the idea that some beliefs may be resistant to change through adulthood. Policy strategies other than vaccine education may be needed to overcome this pandemic and future public health challenges.

Are recommended dietary patterns equitable?

OBJECTIVE: Dietary recommendations (DR) in the USA may be inadequate at improving diets in racial/ethnic minority communities and may require redesign of the systems driving their development over the long term. Meanwhile, cultural adaptation of evidence-based DR may be an important strategy for mitigating nutrition disparities, but less is known about the adaptability of these recommendations to meet the needs of diverse groups. We examined the content and origin of major DRs - aspects that provide context on their potential universality across populations and evaluated their potential for cultural adaptation. DESIGN: Case studies of Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH), the Mediterranean diet (MD), the EAT-Lancet diet (EAT) and the NOVA classification system. SETTING: United States. PARTICIPANTS: Racial/ethnic minority populations. RESULTS: Current DR differ in their origin/evolution but are similar in their reductionist emphasis on physical health. DASH has been successfully adapted for some cultures but may be challenged by the need for intensive resources; MD may be more beneficial if applied as part of a broader set of food procurement/preparation practices than as just diet alone; EAT-Lancet adaptation may not honor existing country-specific practices that are already beneficial to human and environmental health (e.g. traditional/plant-based diets); evidence for cultural adaptation is limited with NOVA, but classification of levels of food processing has potential for widespread application. CONCLUSIONS: For DR to equitably support diverse populations, they must move beyond a Eurocentric or 'general population' framing, be more inclusive of cultural differences and honour social practices to improve diet and reduce disparities.

Views on the need to implement restriction policies to be able to address COVID-19 in the United States.

Several restriction policies implemented in many states in the United States have demonstrated their effectiveness in mitigating the spread of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), but less is known about the differences in views on the restriction policies among different population segments. This study aimed to understand which different population groups of adults in the United States consider several key restriction policies as necessary to combat COVID-19. Survey data from Wave 64 (March 19-24, 2020) of the Pew Research Center's American Trends Panel (n=10,609) and logistic regression were used to evaluate the association between socioeconomic and demographic characteristics, employment status, political party affiliation, news exposure, census region, and opinions about COVID-19 restriction policies. The policies included restricting international travel, imposing business closures, banning large group gatherings, cancelling entertainment events, closing schools, limiting restaurants to carry-out only, and postponing state primary elections. Most survey respondents viewed COVID-19 restriction policies as necessary. Views on each restriction policy varied substantially across some population segments such as age, race, and ethnicity. Regardless of population segments, those who followed news closely or considered themselves Democrat/lean Democrat were more likely to consider all the policies as necessary than those not following the news closely or those who considered themselves Republican/lean Republican. The effectiveness of key COVID-19 restriction policies is likely to vary substantially across population groups given that views on the need to implement these policies vary widely. Tailored health messages may be needed for some population segments given divergent views on COVID-19 restriction policies.