Nativity Status and Access to Care in Canada and the U.S.: Factoring in the Roles of Race/Ethnicity and Socioeconomic Status

Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Department of Health Policy and Management, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.
Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved (Impact Factor: 1.1). 08/2011; 22(3):1075-100. DOI: 10.1353/hpu.2011.0075
Source: PubMed


We conducted cross-country comparisons of Canada and the U.S., and assessed the extent to which access to care varies by nativity status overall, as well as in conjunction with race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Data came from the Joint Canada-U.S. Survey of Health (n=6,620 non-elderly adults). Access measures included having a regular medical doctor, consultation with a health professional in the past year, dentist visit in the past year, Pap test in the past three years, and any unmet health care needs in the past year. Logistic regression was employed to estimate the relative odds of access to care, adjusting for potential confounders. Disparities in access to care based on nativity status overall, as well as nativity-by-race joint effects, were found in both countries. There was also a dose-response effect of education on access to care among the native-born but not among the foreign-born; there were few nativity-by-income joint effects.

8 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Understanding changes in the health of immigrants has been an important area of research in Canadian public health. Recent years have seen important developments, with studies moving away from what might be called 'sick immigrant' versus 'healthy immigrant' debates towards analyzing transitions and how they are influenced by a diverse set of social determinants. The release of data from all three waves of the Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada has also spurred new theoretical understandings of why immigrants' initial health advantage is lost over time, with the experience of discrimination becoming an increasingly important predictor. Three research priorities are emerging as particularly important in this area. These are the need for multilevel analyses that incorporate contextual effects, the need for comparative international studies, and the need to refine the conceptualization of race/ethnicity to take advantage of developments in social theory.
    Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved 08/2012; 23(3):958-62. DOI:10.1353/hpu.2012.0105 · 1.10 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: It is uncertain how many patients with CKD and cardiovascular risk factors in publicly funded universal health care systems are aware of their disease and how to achieve their treatment targets. The CARTaGENE study evaluated BP, lipid, and diabetes profiles as well as corresponding treatments in 20,004 random individuals between 40 and 69 years of age. Participants had free access to health care and were recruited from four regions within the province of Quebec, Canada in 2009 and 2010. CKD (Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration equation; <60 ml/min per 1.73 m(2)) was present in 4.0% of the respondents, and hypertension, diabetes, and hypercholesterolemia were reported by 25%, 7.4%, and 28% of participants, respectively. Self-awareness was low: 8% for CKD, 73% for diabetes, and 45% for hypercholesterolemia. Overall, 31% of patients with hypertension did not meet BP goals, and many received fewer antihypertensive drugs than appropriately controlled individuals; 41% of patients with diabetes failed to meet treatment targets. Among those patients with a moderate or high Framingham risk score, 53% of patients had LDL levels above the recommended levels, and many patients were not receiving a statin. Physician checkups were not associated with greater awareness but did increase the achievement of targets. In this population with access to publicly funded health care, CKD and cardiovascular risk factors are common, and self-awareness of these conditions is low. Recommended targets were frequently not achieved, and treatments were less intensive in those patients who failed to reach goals. New strategies to enhance public awareness and reach guideline targets should be developed.
    Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 01/2014; 9(4). DOI:10.2215/CJN.06550613 · 4.61 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Prior studies have shown racial/ethnic disparities in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening but have not provided a full national picture of disparities across all major racial/ethnic groups. To provide a more complete, up-to-date picture of racial/ethnic disparities in CRC screening and contributing socioeconomic and access barriers. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data from 2010 were analyzed in 2013. Hispanic/Latino participants were stratified by preferred language (Hispanic-English versus Hispanic-Spanish). Non-Hispanics were categorized as White, Black, Asian, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, or American Indian/Alaska Native. Sequential regression models estimated adjusted relative risks (RRs) and the degree to which SES and access to care explained disparities. Overall, 59.6% reported being up-to-date on CRC screening. Self-reported CRC screening was highest in the White (62.0%) racial/ethnic group; followed by Black (59.0%); Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (54.6%); Hispanic-English (52.5%); American Indian/Alaska Native (49.5%); Asian (47.2%); and Hispanic-Spanish (30.6%) groups. Adjustment for SES and access partially explained disparities between Whites and Hispanic-Spanish (final relative risk [RR]=0.76, 95% CI=0.69, 0.83); Hispanic-English (RR=0.94, 95% CI=0.91, 0.98); and American Indian/Alaska Native (RR=0.91, 95% CI=0.85, 0.97) groups. The RR of screening among Asians was unchanged after adjustment for SES and access (0.78, p<0.001). After full adjustment, screening rates were not significantly different among Whites, Blacks, or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders. Large racial/ethnic disparities in CRC screening persist, including substantial differences between English-speaking versus Spanish-speaking Hispanics. Disparities are only partially explained by SES and access to care. Future studies should explore the low rate of screening among Asians and how it varies by racial/ethnic subgroup and language.
    American journal of preventive medicine 03/2014; 46(3):228-36. DOI:10.1016/j.amepre.2013.10.023 · 4.53 Impact Factor
Show more