Racial and urban-rural disparities in lung cancer care: Insight from a Latent Class Growth Analysis

IF 2 Q3 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Sohrab Jaferian , Tanzy Love , Sharad Kumar Singh , Yunna Xie , Elaine Hill , Julie Ryan Wolf
{"title":"Racial and urban-rural disparities in lung cancer care: Insight from a Latent Class Growth Analysis","authors":"Sohrab Jaferian ,&nbsp;Tanzy Love ,&nbsp;Sharad Kumar Singh ,&nbsp;Yunna Xie ,&nbsp;Elaine Hill ,&nbsp;Julie Ryan Wolf","doi":"10.1016/j.jcpo.2025.100585","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Reducing health disparities is crucial for improving health outcomes. In cancer care, disparities persist across regions, socioeconomic groups, and racial populations. To better understand health disparities in lung cancer, the leading cause of cancer mortality in the U.S., we developed a novel method to visualize healthcare disparities by analyzing the sequence of care received, referred to as care paths. This approach aims to identify how variations in care paths among different patient groups are linked to poorer outcomes.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Using Latent Class Growth Analysis on visit sequences of lung cancer patients, we grouped patients into three classes. Then, we employed hazard modeling to predict adverse outcome probabilities for each class.</div></div><div><h3>Findings</h3><div>We identified three classes within our lung cancer cohort (N = 729) using the heterogeneity in their healthcare utilization patterns during 2016 and 2017. The results indicate differences between racial and urban/rural distributions across the classes (p = 0·004 and &lt;0·0005, respectively). Black patients consistently had higher Social Deprivation Index (SDI) scores compared to Whites within each class, with significantly greater SDI in Classes 2 and 3 (p &lt; 0·05 for both comparisons). Rural patients had significantly higher SDI scores than urban patients (p &lt; 0·05 for each class). The area under the risk trajectory curve indicated greater total longitudinal risk of adverse outcome was larger for Black and urban patients in each class than their White and rural counterparts.</div></div><div><h3>Interpretation</h3><div>Our research indicates that Black individuals experienced less favorable adverse outcome risk trajectories compared to White patients based on their care path sequences. Rural patients demonstrated better outcomes than urban patients despite exposure to more social deprivation.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":38212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cancer Policy","volume":"44 ","pages":"Article 100585"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cancer Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213538325000293","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Reducing health disparities is crucial for improving health outcomes. In cancer care, disparities persist across regions, socioeconomic groups, and racial populations. To better understand health disparities in lung cancer, the leading cause of cancer mortality in the U.S., we developed a novel method to visualize healthcare disparities by analyzing the sequence of care received, referred to as care paths. This approach aims to identify how variations in care paths among different patient groups are linked to poorer outcomes.

Methods

Using Latent Class Growth Analysis on visit sequences of lung cancer patients, we grouped patients into three classes. Then, we employed hazard modeling to predict adverse outcome probabilities for each class.

Findings

We identified three classes within our lung cancer cohort (N = 729) using the heterogeneity in their healthcare utilization patterns during 2016 and 2017. The results indicate differences between racial and urban/rural distributions across the classes (p = 0·004 and <0·0005, respectively). Black patients consistently had higher Social Deprivation Index (SDI) scores compared to Whites within each class, with significantly greater SDI in Classes 2 and 3 (p < 0·05 for both comparisons). Rural patients had significantly higher SDI scores than urban patients (p < 0·05 for each class). The area under the risk trajectory curve indicated greater total longitudinal risk of adverse outcome was larger for Black and urban patients in each class than their White and rural counterparts.

Interpretation

Our research indicates that Black individuals experienced less favorable adverse outcome risk trajectories compared to White patients based on their care path sequences. Rural patients demonstrated better outcomes than urban patients despite exposure to more social deprivation.
肺癌治疗的种族和城乡差异:来自潜在类别增长分析的见解
背景缩小健康差距对于改善健康结果至关重要。在癌症治疗方面,不同地区、不同社会经济群体和不同种族的人群仍然存在差异。为了更好地了解肺癌(美国癌症死亡率的主要原因)的健康差异,我们开发了一种新的方法,通过分析所接受的护理顺序来可视化医疗保健差异,称为护理路径。这种方法旨在确定不同患者群体之间护理路径的变化如何与较差的结果相关联。方法对肺癌患者就诊序列进行潜类生长分析,将患者分为三类。然后,我们采用风险模型来预测每个类别的不良后果概率。研究结果:我们根据2016年和2017年期间肺癌患者医疗保健利用模式的异质性,在我们的肺癌队列中确定了三个类别(N = 729)。结果表明,各阶层之间的种族和城乡分布存在差异(p = 0.004和<; 0.005)。黑人患者的社会剥夺指数(SDI)得分始终高于白人患者,其中2级和3级的SDI得分显著高于白人患者(p <; 0.05)。农村患者SDI评分明显高于城市患者(p <; 0.05)。风险轨迹曲线下的面积表明,在每个类别中,黑人和城市患者的不良后果总纵向风险大于白人和农村患者。我们的研究表明,根据护理路径序列,黑人患者比白人患者经历更少的不良结局风险轨迹。农村患者表现出比城市患者更好的结果,尽管暴露于更多的社会剥夺。
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
Journal of Cancer Policy
Journal of Cancer Policy Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
7.70%
发文量
47
审稿时长
65 days
×
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