Quality of Virtual vs. In-Person Outpatient Palliative Care: Disparities by Language and Race.

IF 3.2 2区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Sarah Nouri, Steven Z Pantilat, Christine S Ritchie, Courtney R Lyles, Ying Shi, David O'Riordan, John Boscardin, Rebecca L Sudore
{"title":"Quality of Virtual vs. In-Person Outpatient Palliative Care: Disparities by Language and Race.","authors":"Sarah Nouri, Steven Z Pantilat, Christine S Ritchie, Courtney R Lyles, Ying Shi, David O'Riordan, John Boscardin, Rebecca L Sudore","doi":"10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2024.12.016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Virtual visits have increased in outpatient, clinic-based palliative care (OPC). The association between virtual visits and OPC outcomes is largely unknown.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>(1) Examine the association between visit type (virtual vs. in-person) and screening (yes/no) for psychosocial, spiritual, and goals of care needs. (2) Assess effect modification by language.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used data from the Palliative Care Quality Network (01/2017-03/2021). We conducted multivariable analyses adjusting for age, sex, diagnosis, self-reported race-ethnicity, and language, clustered by site, and included an interaction term to assess effect modification by language.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 2684 patients, 29% had a virtual visit; 50% were ≥65 years old, 24% non-English preferred languages; 18% identified as Hispanic, 9% Black, 17% Asian, 6% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander. There were no differences by visit type in screening for psychosocial (aOR 0.87 vs. in-person visits, 95% CI 0.60-1.25), spiritual (aOR 0.81, 95% CI 0.57-1.15), or goals of care needs (aOR 1.05, 95% CI 0.85-1.31). Patients with non-English preferred languages (vs. English-speaking) had significantly lower odds of screening regardless of visit type. Patients identifying as Black (vs. White) also had significantly lower odds of screening.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There were no differences by visit type in screening for psychosocial, spiritual, and goals of care needs. Patients with preferred languages other than English were significantly less likely to be screened than English speakers, though there was no further difference by visit type. Patients identifying as Black were also significantly less likely to be screened. Addressing these disparities in core OPC elements is essential in providing equitable, high-quality OPC.</p>","PeriodicalId":16634,"journal":{"name":"Journal of pain and symptom management","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of pain and symptom management","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2024.12.016","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Context: Virtual visits have increased in outpatient, clinic-based palliative care (OPC). The association between virtual visits and OPC outcomes is largely unknown.

Objectives: (1) Examine the association between visit type (virtual vs. in-person) and screening (yes/no) for psychosocial, spiritual, and goals of care needs. (2) Assess effect modification by language.

Methods: We used data from the Palliative Care Quality Network (01/2017-03/2021). We conducted multivariable analyses adjusting for age, sex, diagnosis, self-reported race-ethnicity, and language, clustered by site, and included an interaction term to assess effect modification by language.

Results: Among 2684 patients, 29% had a virtual visit; 50% were ≥65 years old, 24% non-English preferred languages; 18% identified as Hispanic, 9% Black, 17% Asian, 6% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander. There were no differences by visit type in screening for psychosocial (aOR 0.87 vs. in-person visits, 95% CI 0.60-1.25), spiritual (aOR 0.81, 95% CI 0.57-1.15), or goals of care needs (aOR 1.05, 95% CI 0.85-1.31). Patients with non-English preferred languages (vs. English-speaking) had significantly lower odds of screening regardless of visit type. Patients identifying as Black (vs. White) also had significantly lower odds of screening.

Conclusions: There were no differences by visit type in screening for psychosocial, spiritual, and goals of care needs. Patients with preferred languages other than English were significantly less likely to be screened than English speakers, though there was no further difference by visit type. Patients identifying as Black were also significantly less likely to be screened. Addressing these disparities in core OPC elements is essential in providing equitable, high-quality OPC.

虚拟与面对面门诊姑息治疗的质量:语言和种族差异。
背景:门诊、基于临床的姑息治疗(OPC)的虚拟访问有所增加。虚拟访问与OPC结果之间的关系在很大程度上是未知的。目的:(1)检查访问类型(虚拟vs.亲自)和筛查(是/否)之间的关系,以满足心理社会、精神和护理需求的目标。(2)评价语言修饰效果。方法:我们使用的数据来自姑息治疗质量网络(2017年1月- 2021年3月)。我们进行了多变量分析,调整了年龄、性别、诊断、自我报告的种族和语言,按地点聚类,并包括一个相互作用项来评估语言对效果的影响。结果:2684例患者中,29%进行了虚拟就诊;50%≥65岁,24%非英语首选语言;18%为西班牙裔,9%为黑人,17%为亚洲人,6%为夏威夷原住民/太平洋岛民。在心理社会筛查(aOR 0.87 vs.亲自访问,95%-CI 0.60-1.25)、精神(aOR 0.81, 95%-CI 0.57-1.15)或护理需求目标(aOR 1.05, 95%-CI 0.85-1.31)方面,不同访问类型没有差异。非英语首选语言的患者(相对于英语首选语言的患者)无论访问类型如何,筛查的几率都明显较低。黑人(相对于白人)患者的筛查几率也明显较低。结论:不同的访视类型在心理社会、精神和护理需求目标筛查方面没有差异。偏好英语以外语言的患者接受筛查的可能性明显低于说英语的患者,尽管在就诊类型方面没有进一步的差异。被认定为黑人的患者接受筛查的可能性也显著降低。解决核心OPC要素中的这些差异对于提供公平、高质量的OPC至关重要。
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
8.90
自引率
6.40%
发文量
821
审稿时长
26 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Pain and Symptom Management is an internationally respected, peer-reviewed journal and serves an interdisciplinary audience of professionals by providing a forum for the publication of the latest clinical research and best practices related to the relief of illness burden among patients afflicted with serious or life-threatening illness.
×
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