Race, gender, and language concordance in the primary care setting

Department of Health Services Administration, College of Public Health, East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, Tennessee, USA.
International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance 02/2009; 22(4):340-52. DOI: 10.1108/09526860910964816
Source: PubMed


The purpose of this paper is to examine race, gender and language concordance in terms of importance to primary care.
The 2003 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Household Component (MEPS) was used. Four distinguishing primary care attributes and selected measures were operationalized primarily from a sample subset that identified a usual source of care (USC): accessibility to USC; interface between primary care and specialist services; treatment decisions; and preventive services received from the USC. Bivariate and multivariate results are reported.
Adjusting for covariates, the following items remained statistically significant: race--choosing primary care physician as USC, USC having office hours, and going to USC for new health problems; gender--choosing primary care physician as USC and USC having office hours; and language--lack of difficulty contacting the USC after hours. However, these items appear to be isolated cases rather than indicators that concordance plays a key role in determining primary care quality. Language barriers/communication issues are the only areas where improvement appears warranted.
While the study has strong accessibility and interpersonal relationship measures, service coordination and comprehensiveness indicators are limited. The analyses' cross-sectional nature also poses a problem in drawing causal relationships and conclusive findings. Finally, sample size limitations preclude stratified analyses across racial/ethnic groups, an important consideration as the relationships between concordance and quality may vary across groups.
This study indicates that more research is needed in this area to determine future resource allocation and policy direction.
The unique contribution of the study is to suggest that race and gender concordance may not accurately predict primary health care quality.

11 Reads
  • American Political Science Association 06/1985; 79(2):616. DOI:10.2307/1956781 · 3.05 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper seeks to provide a framework for understanding differential access to medical care in the U.S. population and to suggest ways to achieve equity of access. The framework is provided by a behavioral model of health services utilization which suggests a sequence of predisposing, enabling and illness variables that determine the number of times people will visit a physician. The model is operationalized using a path analytic technique. The data come from a national survey of the noninstitutionalized U.S. population conducted in late 1975 and early 1976. The results suggest services are generally equitably distributed since age and level of illness are the main determinants of the number of services people receive. However, remaining inequities might be reduced by providing people who report no regular source of medical care with a familiar entry into the health service system.
    Medical Care 08/1978; 16(7):533-46. DOI:10.1097/00005650-197807000-00001 · 3.23 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The United States has achieved dramatic improvements in overall health and life expectancy, largely due to initiatives in public health, health promotion and disease prevention. Academic health centers have played a major role in this effort, given their mission of engaging in research, educating health professionals, providing primary and specialty medical services, and caring for the poor and uninsured. However, national data indicate that minority Americans have poorer health outcomes (compared to whites) from preventable and treatable conditions such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, asthma, cancer and HIV/AIDS. Two factors contribute heavily to these racial and ethnic disparities in health: minorities are subjected to adverse social determinants, and they are disproportionately represented among the uninsured. In the last twenty years, however, the literature has highlighted the fact that racial and ethnic disparities occur not only in health, but also in health care. The Institute of Medicine Report, "Unequal Treatment." The Institute of Medicine (IOM) was asked to determine the extent of racial and ethnic disparities in health care. Their report, entitled "Unequal Treatment," found that racial and ethnic disparities in health care do exist, and that many sources, including health care systems, health care providers, patients and utilization managers, are contributors. Recommendations from "Unequal Treatment": Implications for Academic Health Centers. The IOM Report, "Unequal Treatment," provides a series of recommendations to address racial and ethnic disparities in health care, targeted to a broad audience (the executive summary and full IOM Report can be found at under the search heading "Unequal Treatment"). Several of the recommendations speak directly to the mission and roles of academic health centers, and have clear and direct implications for patient care, education, and research. These recommendations include collecting and reporting health care access and utilization data by patient=s race/ethnicity, encouraging the use of evidence-based guidelines and quality improvement, supporting the use of language interpretation services in the clinical setting, increasing awareness of racial/ethnic disparities in health care, increasing the proportion of underrepresented minorities in the health care workforce, integrating cross-cultural education into the training of all health care professionals, and conducting further research to identify sources of disparities and promising interventions. CONCLUSION: "Unequal Treatment" provides the first detailed, systematic examination of racial/ethnic disparities in health care, and provides a blueprint for how to address them. The report=s recommendations are broad in scope, yet have direct implications for academic health centers.
    Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine A Journal of Translational and Personalized Medicine 11/2004; 71(5):314-21. · 1.62 Impact Factor
Show more


11 Reads