The Use of Race and Socioeconomic Status Variables in Published Otolaryngologic Research.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the use of race and socioeconomic status (SES) variables in clinical otolarynogologic research. METHODS: Databases were queried for all articles published in 2016 issues of 5 major otolaryngologic journals. One thousand, one hundred and forty of 1593 articles abstracted met inclusion criteria for analysis. RESULTS: In total, 244 (21.4%) studies specified race as a variable. The subspecialty of Head and Neck cancer specified race at statistically higher rates compared to other subspecialties (P = .002). Two hundred nine (34.0%) domestic studies specified race compared to 35 (6.7%) international studies. Of the 244 studies that specified race, 79 (32.4%) defined race using racial and ethnic categories interchangeably. Two hundred twenty-four (91.8%) studies reported data by race, 145 (59.4%) analyzed the data, and 112 (45.9%) discussed race-based results.In total, 94 (8.2%) studies specified SES. All subspecialties specified SES at statistically similar rates. Seventy (11.4%) domestic studies specified SES compared to 24 (4.6%) international studies. Of the 94 studies that specified SES, 42 (44.7%) defined SES using insurance status, 35 (37.2%) used education, and 32 (34.0%) used income. Seventy-eight (83.0%) studies reported data by SES, 71 (75.5%) analyzed the data, and 68 (72.3%) discussed SES-based results. CONCLUSION: In clinical otolaryngologic research, the study of race and SES is limited. To improve quality of research and patient care for all patients, investigators should clearly justify their use of race and SES variables, carefully select their measures of race and SES (if the use of these variables is justified), and study race/SES-based data beyond just a superficial level.

To Prescribe or Not to Prescribe?: Barriers and Motivators for Progressing Along Each Stage of the Buprenorphine Training and Prescribing Path.

This study aimed to identify the strongest barriers and motivators associated with each step toward buprenorphine prescribing (1. obtaining a waiver, 2. beginning to prescribe, and 3. prescribing to more people) among a sample of Missouri-based medical professionals (N = 130). Item weights (number of endorsements times mean rank of the item's importance) were calculated based on their responses. Across groups, lack of access to psychosocial support services, need for higher levels of care, and clinical complexity were strong barriers. Among non-prescribers (n = 57, 46.3%), administrative burden, potential of becoming an addiction clinic, and concern about misuse and diversion were most heavily weighted. Among prescribers (n = 66, 53.7%), patients' inability to afford medications was a barrier across phases. Prominent motivators among all groups were the effectiveness of buprenorphine, improvement in other health outcomes, and a personal interest in treating addiction. Only prescribers reported the presence of institutional support and mentors as significant motivators.