Racial Disparities in Invasive Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus Infections, 2005-2014.

Background: Despite substantial attention to the individual topics, little is known about the relationship between racial disparities and antimicrobial-resistant and/or healthcare-associated infection trends, such as for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Methods: We analyzed Emerging Infections Program 2005-2014 surveillance data (9 US states) to determine whether reductions in invasive MRSA incidence (isolated from normally sterile body sites) affected racial disparities in rates. Case classification included hospital-onset (HO, culture >3 days after admission), healthcare-associated community onset (HACO, culture ≤3 days after admission and dialysis, hospitalization, surgery, or long-term care residence within 1 year prior), or community-associated (CA, all others). Negative binomial regression models were used to evaluate the adjusted rate ratio (aRR) of MRSA in black patients (vs in white patients) controlling for age, sex, and temporal trends. Results: During 2005-2014, invasive HO and HACO (but not CA) MRSA rates decreased. Despite this, blacks had higher rates for HO (aRR, 3.20; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.35-4.35), HACO (aRR, 3.84; 95% CI, 2.94-5.01), and CA (aRR, 2.78; 95% CI, 2.30-3.37) MRSA. Limiting the analysis to chronic dialysis patients reduced, but did not eliminate, the higher HACO MRSA rates among blacks (aRR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.72-1.96), even though invasive MRSA rates among dialysis patients decreased during 2005-2014. These racial differences did not change over time. Conclusions: Previous reductions in healthcare-associated MRSA infections have not affected racial disparities in MRSA rates. Improved understanding of the underlying causes of these differences is needed to develop effective prevention interventions that reduce racial disparities in MRSA infections.

Collection of Data on Race, Ethnicity, Language, and Nativity by US Public Health Surveillance and Monitoring Systems: Gaps and Opportunities.

OBJECTIVE: Despite increasing diversity in the US population, substantial gaps in collecting data on race, ethnicity, primary language, and nativity indicators persist in public health surveillance and monitoring systems. In addition, few systems provide questionnaires in foreign languages for inclusion of non-English speakers. We assessed (1) the extent of data collected on race, ethnicity, primary language, and nativity indicators (ie, place of birth, immigration status, and years in the United States) and (2) the use of data-collection instruments in non-English languages among Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-supported public health surveillance and monitoring systems in the United States. METHODS: We identified CDC-supported surveillance and health monitoring systems in place from 2010 through 2013 by searching CDC websites and other federal websites. For each system, we assessed its website, documentation, and publications for evidence of the variables of interest and use of data-collection instruments in non-English languages. We requested missing information from CDC program officials, as needed. RESULTS: Of 125 data systems, 100 (80%) collected data on race and ethnicity, 2 more collected data on ethnicity but not race, 26 (21%) collected data on racial/ethnic subcategories, 40 (32%) collected data on place of birth, 21 (17%) collected data on years in the United States, 14 (11%) collected data on immigration status, 13 (10%) collected data on primary language, and 29 (23%) used non-English data-collection instruments. Population-based surveys and disease registries more often collected data on detailed variables than did case-based, administrative, and multiple-source systems. CONCLUSIONS: More complete and accurate data on race, ethnicity, primary language, and nativity can improve the quality, representativeness, and usefulness of public health surveillance and monitoring systems to plan and evaluate targeted public health interventions to eliminate health disparities.

Getting Data Right - and Righteous to Improve Hispanic or Latino Health.

Hispanics or Latinos constitute the largest racial/ethnic minority in the United States. They are also a very diverse population. Latino/Hispanic's health varies significantly for subgroups defined by national origin, race, primary language, and migration-related factors (place of birth, immigration status, years of residence in the United States). Most Hispanics speak Spanish at home, and one-third have limited English proficiency (LEP). There is growing awareness on the importance for population health monitoring programs to collect those data elements (Hispanic subgroup, primary language, and migration-related factors) that better capture Hispanics' diversity, and to provide language assistance (translation of data collection forms, interpreters) to ensure meaningful inclusion of all Latinos/Hispanics in national health monitoring. There are strong ethical and scientific reasons for such expansion of data collection by public health entities. First, expand data elements can help identify otherwise hidden Hispanic subpopulations' health disparities. This may promote a more just and equitable distribution of health resources to underserved populations. Second, language access is needed to ensure fair and legal treatment of LEP individuals in federally supported data collection activities. Finally, these strategies are likely to improve the quality and representativeness of data needed to monitor and address the health of all Latino/Hispanic populations in the United States.