Health Care Perceptions and a Concierge-Based Transplant Evaluation for Patients With Kidney Disease.

IF 10.5 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Miriam Vélez-Bermúdez, Yuridia Leyva, Jamie M Loor, Mary Amanda Dew, Yiliang Zhu, Mark L Unruh, L Ebony Boulware, Amit Tevar, Larissa Myaskovsky
{"title":"Health Care Perceptions and a Concierge-Based Transplant Evaluation for Patients With Kidney Disease.","authors":"Miriam Vélez-Bermúdez, Yuridia Leyva, Jamie M Loor, Mary Amanda Dew, Yiliang Zhu, Mark L Unruh, L Ebony Boulware, Amit Tevar, Larissa Myaskovsky","doi":"10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.47335","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>The kidney transplant (KT) evaluation process is particularly time consuming and burdensome for Black patients, who report more discrimination, racism, and mistrust in health care than White patients. Whether alleviating patient burden in the KT evaluation process may improve perceptions of health care and enhance patients' experiences is important to understand.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To investigate whether Black and White participants would experience improvements in perceptions of health care after undergoing a streamlined, concierge-based approach to KT evaluation.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>This prospective cohort study from a single urban transplant center included Black and White English-speaking adults who were referred for KT and deemed eligible to proceed with the KT evaluation process. The patients responded to baseline and follow-up questionnaires. The study was conducted from May 2015 to June 2018. Questionnaires were collected before KT evaluation initiation (baseline) and after KT evaluation completion (follow-up). Data were analyzed from October 2022 to January 2024.</p><p><strong>Exposure: </strong>Data were stratified by race (Black compared with White) and time (baseline compared with follow-up).</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>The main outcomes were experiences of discrimination in health care, perceived racism in health care, medical mistrust of health care systems, and trust in physician. Repeated-measures regression was used to assess race, time, and the race-by-time interaction as factors associated with each outcome.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study included 820 participants (mean [SD] age, 56.50 [12.93] years; 514 [63%] male), of whom 205 (25%) were Black and 615 (75%) were White. At baseline and follow-up, Black participants reported higher discrimination (119 [58%]; χ21 = 121.89; P < .001 and 77 [38%]; χ21 = 96.09; P < .001, respectively), racism (mean [SD], 2.73 [0.91]; t290.46 = 7.77; P < .001 and mean [SD], 2.63 [0.85]; t296.90 = 7.52; P < .001, respectively), and mistrust (mean [SD], 3.32 [0.68]; t816.00 = 7.29; P < .001 and mean [SD], 3.18 [0.71]; t805.00 = 6.43; P < .001, respectively) scores but lower trust in physician scores (mean [SD], 3.93 [0.65]; t818.00 = -2.01; P = .04 and mean [SD], 3.78 [0.65]; t811.00 = -5.42; P < .001, respectively) compared with White participants. All participants experienced statistically significant reductions in discrimination (Black participants: odds ratio, 0.27 [95% CI, 0.16-0.45]; P < .001; White participants: odds ratio, 0.37 [95% CI, 0.25-0.55]; P < .001) and medical mistrust in health care (Black participants: β [SE], -0.16 [0.05]; P < .001; White participants: β [SE], -0.09 [0.03]; P < .001), and Black participants reported lower perceived racism at follow-up (β [SE], -0.11 [0.05]; P = .04). There was a statistically significant race-by-time interaction outcome in which Black participants' trust in physicians was significantly lower at follow-up, but White participants reported no change.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>The findings of this cohort study of patients who underwent a streamlined, concierge-based KT evaluation process suggest that a streamlined approach to clinic-level procedures may improve patients' perceptions of the health care system but may not improve their trust in physicians. Future research should determine whether these factors are associated with KT outcome, type of KT received, and time to KT.</p>","PeriodicalId":14694,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Network Open","volume":"7 11","pages":"e2447335"},"PeriodicalIF":10.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11600232/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMA Network Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.47335","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Importance: The kidney transplant (KT) evaluation process is particularly time consuming and burdensome for Black patients, who report more discrimination, racism, and mistrust in health care than White patients. Whether alleviating patient burden in the KT evaluation process may improve perceptions of health care and enhance patients' experiences is important to understand.

Objective: To investigate whether Black and White participants would experience improvements in perceptions of health care after undergoing a streamlined, concierge-based approach to KT evaluation.

Design, setting, and participants: This prospective cohort study from a single urban transplant center included Black and White English-speaking adults who were referred for KT and deemed eligible to proceed with the KT evaluation process. The patients responded to baseline and follow-up questionnaires. The study was conducted from May 2015 to June 2018. Questionnaires were collected before KT evaluation initiation (baseline) and after KT evaluation completion (follow-up). Data were analyzed from October 2022 to January 2024.

Exposure: Data were stratified by race (Black compared with White) and time (baseline compared with follow-up).

Main outcomes and measures: The main outcomes were experiences of discrimination in health care, perceived racism in health care, medical mistrust of health care systems, and trust in physician. Repeated-measures regression was used to assess race, time, and the race-by-time interaction as factors associated with each outcome.

Results: The study included 820 participants (mean [SD] age, 56.50 [12.93] years; 514 [63%] male), of whom 205 (25%) were Black and 615 (75%) were White. At baseline and follow-up, Black participants reported higher discrimination (119 [58%]; χ21 = 121.89; P < .001 and 77 [38%]; χ21 = 96.09; P < .001, respectively), racism (mean [SD], 2.73 [0.91]; t290.46 = 7.77; P < .001 and mean [SD], 2.63 [0.85]; t296.90 = 7.52; P < .001, respectively), and mistrust (mean [SD], 3.32 [0.68]; t816.00 = 7.29; P < .001 and mean [SD], 3.18 [0.71]; t805.00 = 6.43; P < .001, respectively) scores but lower trust in physician scores (mean [SD], 3.93 [0.65]; t818.00 = -2.01; P = .04 and mean [SD], 3.78 [0.65]; t811.00 = -5.42; P < .001, respectively) compared with White participants. All participants experienced statistically significant reductions in discrimination (Black participants: odds ratio, 0.27 [95% CI, 0.16-0.45]; P < .001; White participants: odds ratio, 0.37 [95% CI, 0.25-0.55]; P < .001) and medical mistrust in health care (Black participants: β [SE], -0.16 [0.05]; P < .001; White participants: β [SE], -0.09 [0.03]; P < .001), and Black participants reported lower perceived racism at follow-up (β [SE], -0.11 [0.05]; P = .04). There was a statistically significant race-by-time interaction outcome in which Black participants' trust in physicians was significantly lower at follow-up, but White participants reported no change.

Conclusions and relevance: The findings of this cohort study of patients who underwent a streamlined, concierge-based KT evaluation process suggest that a streamlined approach to clinic-level procedures may improve patients' perceptions of the health care system but may not improve their trust in physicians. Future research should determine whether these factors are associated with KT outcome, type of KT received, and time to KT.

肾病患者对医疗保健的看法和基于服务的移植评估。
重要性:肾移植(KT)评估过程对黑人患者而言尤其耗时且负担沉重,他们对医疗服务的歧视、种族主义和不信任程度高于白人患者。了解减轻患者在肾移植评估过程中的负担是否会改善他们对医疗保健的看法并提高患者的体验非常重要:目的:调查黑人和白人参与者在接受简化的、基于礼宾服务的 KT 评估方法后,是否会改善对医疗保健的看法:这项前瞻性队列研究来自一个单一的城市移植中心,研究对象包括黑人和白人,他们都是讲英语的成年人,被转诊接受 KT 并被认为符合 KT 评估流程的条件。患者回答了基线和随访问卷。研究时间为 2015 年 5 月至 2018 年 6 月。调查问卷在 KT 评估开始前(基线)和 KT 评估完成后(随访)收集。数据分析时间为 2022 年 10 月至 2024 年 1 月:数据按种族(黑人与白人相比)和时间(基线与随访相比)进行分层:主要结果为医疗保健中的歧视经历、医疗保健中的种族主义感知、对医疗保健系统的不信任以及对医生的信任。采用重复测量回归法评估种族、时间以及种族与时间的交互作用等与各项结果相关的因素:该研究包括 820 名参与者(平均 [SD] 年龄,56.50 [12.93] 岁;514 [63%] 男性),其中 205 人(25%)为黑人,615 人(75%)为白人。在基线和随访中,黑人参与者报告的歧视率较高(119 [58%];χ21 = 121.89;P 结论和相关性:这项队列研究的结果表明,简化诊所级程序的方法可能会改善患者对医疗保健系统的看法,但可能不会提高他们对医生的信任度。未来的研究应确定这些因素是否与 KT 结果、接受的 KT 类型和接受 KT 的时间有关。
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
JAMA Network Open
JAMA Network Open Medicine-General Medicine
CiteScore
16.00
自引率
2.90%
发文量
2126
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: JAMA Network Open, a member of the esteemed JAMA Network, stands as an international, peer-reviewed, open-access general medical journal.The publication is dedicated to disseminating research across various health disciplines and countries, encompassing clinical care, innovation in health care, health policy, and global health. JAMA Network Open caters to clinicians, investigators, and policymakers, providing a platform for valuable insights and advancements in the medical field. As part of the JAMA Network, a consortium of peer-reviewed general medical and specialty publications, JAMA Network Open contributes to the collective knowledge and understanding within the medical community.
×
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