Patient-provider communication quality: Socioeconomic disparities in smoking outcomes.

IF 1.9 Q3 SUBSTANCE ABUSE
Tobacco Prevention & Cessation Pub Date : 2024-03-11 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.18332/tpc/184050
Soumya Upadhyay, Jalen Jones
{"title":"Patient-provider communication quality: Socioeconomic disparities in smoking outcomes.","authors":"Soumya Upadhyay, Jalen Jones","doi":"10.18332/tpc/184050","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Patient-provider communication quality is instrumental for healthy outcomes in patients. The objective of this study is to examine the relationships between patient-provider communication quality and participant characteristics, perception of e-cigarette harmfulness, and smoking outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A pooled cross-sectional design was used on secondary data obtained from the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) 5 from Cycle 1 through Cycle 4, from 2017-2022. Our final sample contained 3511 observations. Our outcome variable was the perception of electronic cigarette smoking status. The independent variable was patient-provider communication quality (PPCQ), measured from a series of questions with responses on a 4-item Likert scale (always, usually, sometimes, never). Demographic variables such as marital status, health insurance status, occupation status, and health-related variables were used as participant characteristics. Ordinal logistic regression models were used to examine the above relationships.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Compared to males, females had lower odds of being in a higher category of perception of e-cigarette harmfulness compared to other categories of e-cigarette harmfulness (AOR=0.66; 95% CI: 0.57-0.76). Respondents who were non-Hispanic Black or Hispanic had lower odds of being in a higher category of perception of e-cigarettes compared to Whites (AOR=0.52; 95% CI: 0.49-0.78, and AOR=0.51; 95% CI: 0.41-0.65, respectively). Respondents who had higher education level compared to those with less than high school had lower odds (AOR=0.30; 95% CI: 0.17-0.51), and Hispanics compared to Whites had higher odds (AOR=1.59; 95% CI: 1.05-2.40), of being former smokers rather than current smokers.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Providers should invest in staff training and development to target the populations that need conversations regarding e-cigarette usage.</p>","PeriodicalId":44546,"journal":{"name":"Tobacco Prevention & Cessation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10926686/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tobacco Prevention & Cessation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18332/tpc/184050","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SUBSTANCE ABUSE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Patient-provider communication quality is instrumental for healthy outcomes in patients. The objective of this study is to examine the relationships between patient-provider communication quality and participant characteristics, perception of e-cigarette harmfulness, and smoking outcomes.

Methods: A pooled cross-sectional design was used on secondary data obtained from the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) 5 from Cycle 1 through Cycle 4, from 2017-2022. Our final sample contained 3511 observations. Our outcome variable was the perception of electronic cigarette smoking status. The independent variable was patient-provider communication quality (PPCQ), measured from a series of questions with responses on a 4-item Likert scale (always, usually, sometimes, never). Demographic variables such as marital status, health insurance status, occupation status, and health-related variables were used as participant characteristics. Ordinal logistic regression models were used to examine the above relationships.

Results: Compared to males, females had lower odds of being in a higher category of perception of e-cigarette harmfulness compared to other categories of e-cigarette harmfulness (AOR=0.66; 95% CI: 0.57-0.76). Respondents who were non-Hispanic Black or Hispanic had lower odds of being in a higher category of perception of e-cigarettes compared to Whites (AOR=0.52; 95% CI: 0.49-0.78, and AOR=0.51; 95% CI: 0.41-0.65, respectively). Respondents who had higher education level compared to those with less than high school had lower odds (AOR=0.30; 95% CI: 0.17-0.51), and Hispanics compared to Whites had higher odds (AOR=1.59; 95% CI: 1.05-2.40), of being former smokers rather than current smokers.

Conclusions: Providers should invest in staff training and development to target the populations that need conversations regarding e-cigarette usage.

医患沟通质量:吸烟结果的社会经济差异。
简介患者与医疗服务提供者之间的沟通质量对患者的健康结果至关重要。本研究旨在探讨患者与医护人员沟通质量与参与者特征、对电子烟有害性的认知以及吸烟结果之间的关系:采用集合横断面设计,对从 2017-2022 年第 1 周期到第 4 周期的健康信息全国趋势调查(HINTS)5 中获得的二手数据进行研究。我们的最终样本包含 3511 个观察结果。我们的结果变量是对电子烟吸烟状况的感知。自变量是患者与医疗服务提供者沟通质量(PPCQ),通过一系列问题进行测量,问题的回答采用 4 项李克特量表(总是、通常、有时、从不)。婚姻状况、医疗保险状况、职业状况和健康相关变量等人口统计学变量被用作参与者特征。结果显示,与男性相比,女性的患病率较高:与男性相比,女性对电子烟有害性的认知属于较高类别的几率低于其他类别(AOR=0.66;95% CI:0.57-0.76)。与白人相比,非西班牙裔黑人或西班牙裔受访者对电子烟的认知属于较高类别的几率较低(AOR=0.52;95% CI:0.49-0.78;AOR=0.51;95% CI:0.41-0.65)。与高中以下学历的受访者相比,受教育程度较高的受访者曾经吸烟而非现在吸烟的几率较低(AOR=0.30;95% CI:0.17-0.51),与白人相比,西班牙裔受访者曾经吸烟而非现在吸烟的几率较高(AOR=1.59;95% CI:1.05-2.40):医疗机构应投资于员工培训和发展,以针对需要就电子烟使用进行对话的人群。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
155
审稿时长
4 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信