The Patient Experience Divide: How Income Relates to Care Quality in the Primary Care Setting.

IF 1.9 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Medical Care Pub Date : 2026-06-01 Epub Date: 2026-03-30 DOI:10.1097/MLR.0000000000002313
Steven C Martino, Kerry A Reynolds, Andrew M Parker, Sarah M Zelazny, Mary Slaughter, Rachel Grob, Marc N Elliott, Ron D Hays
{"title":"The Patient Experience Divide: How Income Relates to Care Quality in the Primary Care Setting.","authors":"Steven C Martino, Kerry A Reynolds, Andrew M Parker, Sarah M Zelazny, Mary Slaughter, Rachel Grob, Marc N Elliott, Ron D Hays","doi":"10.1097/MLR.0000000000002313","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Income is closely linked to morbidity and mortality in the United States, potentially due in part to differences in patient experience. However, existing studies on income and care experiences are outdated and have other important limitations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using data from a recent national sample of adults (N=5016), we conducted a mixed-methods investigation of the relationship between income and primary care experiences. Patient experience was measured using the CAHPS Clinician and Group survey (CG-CAHPS) and its associated Narrative Item Set (NIS). Closed-ended responses were used to create 4 composite measures, for example, access to care, while open-ended NIS responses were coded for positive and negative mentions of 7 aspects of care: access, coordination, communication, office staff, efficiency, thoroughness, and emotional rapport.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Contingent on mentioning an aspect of care in their narratives, low-income participants had lower unadjusted odds of making positive mentions of access, coordination, communication, office staff, efficiency, and emotional rapport (all P- values ≤0.02). Conversely, they had higher unadjusted odds of making negative mentions of coordination, communication, efficiency, and thoroughness (all P -values ≤0.006). Patterns were similar after controlling for education and other characteristics. Low-income participants also had scores on all CG-CAHPS composite measures that were 3-5 points lower than scores for higher-income participants (all P- values <0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Low-income patients report fewer positive and more negative health care experiences than higher-income patients across multiple aspects of care. These deficits may contribute to their higher morbidity and mortality. Further research is needed to uncover underlying causes and inform policies and practices to ensure high-quality care for all patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":18364,"journal":{"name":"Medical Care","volume":" ","pages":"353-360"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13037676/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000002313","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/3/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Income is closely linked to morbidity and mortality in the United States, potentially due in part to differences in patient experience. However, existing studies on income and care experiences are outdated and have other important limitations.

Methods: Using data from a recent national sample of adults (N=5016), we conducted a mixed-methods investigation of the relationship between income and primary care experiences. Patient experience was measured using the CAHPS Clinician and Group survey (CG-CAHPS) and its associated Narrative Item Set (NIS). Closed-ended responses were used to create 4 composite measures, for example, access to care, while open-ended NIS responses were coded for positive and negative mentions of 7 aspects of care: access, coordination, communication, office staff, efficiency, thoroughness, and emotional rapport.

Results: Contingent on mentioning an aspect of care in their narratives, low-income participants had lower unadjusted odds of making positive mentions of access, coordination, communication, office staff, efficiency, and emotional rapport (all P- values ≤0.02). Conversely, they had higher unadjusted odds of making negative mentions of coordination, communication, efficiency, and thoroughness (all P -values ≤0.006). Patterns were similar after controlling for education and other characteristics. Low-income participants also had scores on all CG-CAHPS composite measures that were 3-5 points lower than scores for higher-income participants (all P- values <0.001).

Conclusion: Low-income patients report fewer positive and more negative health care experiences than higher-income patients across multiple aspects of care. These deficits may contribute to their higher morbidity and mortality. Further research is needed to uncover underlying causes and inform policies and practices to ensure high-quality care for all patients.

患者体验鸿沟:收入如何与初级保健环境中的护理质量相关。
背景:在美国,收入与发病率和死亡率密切相关,部分原因可能是患者经历的差异。然而,现有的关于收入和护理经验的研究已经过时,并且存在其他重要的局限性。方法:利用最近全国成人样本(N=5016)的数据,我们对收入与初级保健经历之间的关系进行了混合方法调查。使用CAHPS临床和小组调查(CG-CAHPS)及其相关的叙述项目集(NIS)来测量患者体验。封闭式回答被用来创建4个复合措施,例如,获得护理,而开放式NIS回答被编码为对护理的7个方面的积极和消极提及:获取、协调、沟通、办公室人员、效率、彻底性和情感融洽。结果:低收入参与者在叙述中提到护理的一个方面时,未调整的积极提到机会、协调、沟通、办公室人员、效率和情感融洽的几率较低(所有p值≤0.02)。相反,他们在协调性、沟通、效率和彻底性方面有更高的未调整几率(所有p值≤0.006)。在控制了教育程度和其他特征后,结果相似。低收入参与者在所有CG-CAHPS综合测量上的得分也比高收入参与者低3-5分(所有p值)结论:低收入患者在多个护理方面比高收入患者报告的积极医疗保健经历更少,消极医疗保健经历更多。这些缺陷可能导致其较高的发病率和死亡率。需要进一步的研究来发现潜在的原因,并为政策和实践提供信息,以确保为所有患者提供高质量的护理。
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
Medical Care
Medical Care 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
3.30%
发文量
228
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Rated as one of the top ten journals in healthcare administration, Medical Care is devoted to all aspects of the administration and delivery of healthcare. This scholarly journal publishes original, peer-reviewed papers documenting the most current developments in the rapidly changing field of healthcare. This timely journal reports on the findings of original investigations into issues related to the research, planning, organization, financing, provision, and evaluation of health services.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书