Article

Improving care for minorities: can quality improvement interventions improve care and outcomes for depressed minorities? Results of a randomized, controlled trial.

Department of Psychiatry, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA.
Health Services Research (Impact Factor: 2.49). 05/2003; 38(2):613-30. DOI: 10.1111/1475-6773.00136
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Ethnic minority patients often receive poorer quality care and have worse outcomes than white patients, yet practice-based approaches to reduce such disparities have not been identified. We determined whether practice-initiated quality improvement (QI) interventions for depressed primary care patients improve care across ethnic groups and reduce outcome disparities.
The sample consists of 46 primary care practices in 6 U.S. managed care organizations; 181 clinicians; 398 Latinos, 93 African Americans, and 778 white patients with probable depressive disorder. STUDY DEIGN: Matched practices were randomized to usual care or one of two QI programs that trained local experts to educate clinicians; nurses to educate, assess, and follow-up with patients; and psychotherapists to conduct Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. Patients and physicians selected treatments. Interventions featured modest accommodations for minority patients (e.g., translations, cultural training for clinicians).
Multilevel logistic regression analyses assessed intervention effects within and among ethnic groups.
At baseline, all ethnic groups Latino, African American, white) had low to moderate rates of appropriate care and the interventions significantly improved appropriate care at six months (by 8-20 percentage points) within each ethnic group, with no significant difference in response by ethnic group. The interventions significantly decreased the likelihood that Latinos and African Americans would report probable depression at months 6 and 12; the white intervention sample did not differ from controls in reported probable depression at either follow-up. While the intervention significantly improved the rate of employment for whites and not for minorities, precision was low for comparing intervention response on this outcome. It is important to note that minorities remained less likely to have appropriate care and more likely to be depressed than white patients.
Implementation of quality improvement interventions that have modest accommodations for minority patients can improve quality of care for whites and underserved minorities alike, while minorities may be especially likely to benefit clinically. Further research needs to clarify whether employment benefits are limited to whites and if so, whether this represents a difference in opportunities. Quality improvement programs appear to improve quality of care without increasing disparities, and may offer an approach to reduce health disparities.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Jeanne Miranda, Jun 17, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
89 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Community-based health interventions have emerged as a growing focus for anthropological research. The application of ethnographic approaches in clinical practice settings reveals that community-based interventions must grapple with "noise," or unanticipated factors such as patients' own perceptions of illness and treatment, primary care providers' non-adherence to guidelines-based treatment, the social dynamics of the clinic site itself, and incomplete understanding and acceptance of an intervention by a clinic's staff members. Such noise can influence the implementation and quality of treatment. Thus, identifying clinic-based noise is critical in assessments of fidelity to intervention protocols as well as outcomes of community-based interventions. This paper highlights findings from an evaluation of a mental health intervention focusing on the role of promotoras (briefly trained, non-professional community health workers) as mental health practitioners in two urban New Mexico, USA, community health centers. Our research identified three areas of clinic-based noise: the clinics' physical ability to "absorb" the intervention, the challenges of co-worker instability and interpersonal relationships, and balancing extra workplace demands. The findings demonstrate the value of ethnographic approaches in community-based intervention research.
    Social Science & Medicine 08/2007; 65(2):319-30. DOI:10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.03.004 · 2.56 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Recent research in the United States has demonstrated striking health disparities across ethnic groups. Despite a longstanding interest in ethnic disadvantage in psychiatric epidemiology, patterns of psychiatric morbidity across ethnic groups have never been examined in a nationally representative sample. Ethnic differences in psychiatric morbidity are analyzed using data from the National Comorbidity Survey (NCS). The three largest ethnic groups in the United States--Hispanics, Non-Hispanic Blacks and Non-Hispanic Whites were compared with respect to lifetime risk and persistence of three categories of psychiatric disorder: mood disorder, anxiety disorder, and substance use disorder. Where differences across ethnic groups were found in lifetime risk, socially disadvantaged groups had lower risk. Relative to Non-Hispanic Whites, Hispanics had lower lifetime risk of substance use disorder and Non-Hispanic Blacks had lower lifetime risk of mood, anxiety and substance use disorders. Where differences were found in persistence of disorders, disadvantaged groups had higher risk. Hispanics with mood disorders were more likely to be persistently ill as were Non-Hispanic Blacks with respect to both mood disorders and anxiety disorders. Closer examination found these differences to be generally consistent across population subgroups. Members of disadvantaged ethnic groups in the United States do not have an increased risk for psychiatric disorders. Members of these groups, however, do tend to have more persistent disorders. Future research should focus on explanations for these findings, including the possibility that these comparisons are biased, and on potential means of reducing the disparity in persistence of disorders across ethnic groups.
    Psychological Medicine 04/2005; 35(3):317-27. DOI:10.1017/S0033291704003514 · 5.43 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Older adults, who are racial/ethnic minorities, report multiple chronic conditions, reside in medically underserved rural areas, or have low incomes carry a high burden of chronic illness but traditionally lack access to disease prevention programs. The Chronic Disease Self-Management Program (CDSMP), A Matter of Balance/Volunteer Lay Leader (AMOB/VLL), and EnhanceFitness (EF) are widely disseminated evidence-based programs (EBP), but the extent to which they are simultaneously delivered in communities to reach vulnerable populations has not been documented. We conducted cross-sectional analyses of three EBP disseminated within 27 states throughout the United States (US) (2006-2009) as part of the Administration on Aging (AoA) Evidence-Based Disease and Disability Prevention Initiative, which received co-funding from the Atlantic Philanthropies. This study measures the extent to which CDSMP, AMOB/VLL, and EF reached vulnerable older adults. It also examines characteristics of communities offering one of these programs relative to those simultaneously offering two or all three programs. Minority/ethnic participants represented 38% for CDSMP, 26% for AMOB/VLL, and 43% for EF. Rural participation was 18% for CDSMP, 17% for AMOB/VLL, and 25% for EF. Those with comorbidities included 63.2% for CDSMP, 58.7% for AMOB/VLL, and 63.6% for EF while approximately one-quarter of participants had incomes under $15,000 for all programs. Rural areas and health professional shortage areas (HPSA) tended to deliver fewer EBP relative to urban areas and non-HPSA. These EBP attract diverse older adult participants. Findings highlight the capability of communities to serve potentially vulnerable older adults by offering multiple EBP. Because each program addresses unique issues facing this older population, further research is needed to better understand how communities can introduce, embed, and sustain multiple EBP to ensure widespread access and utilization, especially to traditionally underserved subgroups.
    Frontiers in Public Health 04/2015; 2. DOI:10.3389/fpubh.2014.00156