Jordan Janae Cole, Jonathan P Williams, Angela D Sellitto, Laura Rosa Baratta, Julia B Huecker, Dustin Baldridge, Thomas Kannampallil, Christina A Gurnett, Joyce E Balls-Berry
{"title":"Association of Social Determinants of Health With Genetic Test Request and Completion Rates in Children With Neurologic Disorders.","authors":"Jordan Janae Cole, Jonathan P Williams, Angela D Sellitto, Laura Rosa Baratta, Julia B Huecker, Dustin Baldridge, Thomas Kannampallil, Christina A Gurnett, Joyce E Balls-Berry","doi":"10.1212/WNL.0000000000210275","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>Genetic testing is critical for optimal diagnosis and management of pediatric neurology patients, but access is challenging. We investigated whether social determinants of health (SDOH) were associated with genetic testing among pediatric neurology patients in a retrospective observational study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Electronic health record data were extracted from pediatric outpatients (0-18 years) evaluated at a single tertiary care institution between July 2018 and January 2020. Genetic testing requests, insurance denials, and test completion rates were compared among non-Hispanic single-racial or multiracial Black (Black) vs non-Hispanic single-racial White (White) patients. SDOH and clinical variables including ethnoracial identity, insurance type, Area Deprivation Index, rural urban commuting area, sex, age, diagnoses, and number of neurology visits were evaluated to identify associations with chromosomal microarray (CMA), multigene panel (MGP), and exome/genome sequencing (ES/GS) test completion.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 11,371 patients (mean age 9.25 years; 46.1% female), 554 (4.9%) completed ≥1 genetic test in the study interval, with White patients nearly twice as likely to have completed ≥1 genetic test compared with Black patients (aOR 1.88, 95% CI 1.41-2.51). Outpatient pediatric neurology was the most common specialty through which testing was completed. Neurology provider request rates for genetic testing did not differ by patient ethnoracial identity, but insurance denial rates after neurology request were lower for White vs Black patients (relative rate ratio [RR] 0.44, 95% CI 0.27-0.73), and those with public insurance were less likely to complete genetic testing after it was requested through neurology (aOR 0.59, 95% CI 0.35-0.97). However, when considering individual genetic test types completed through any specialty, insurance type was significantly associated only with MGP completion (public vs private OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.40-0.77), not CMA or ES/GS.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Marked ethnoracial disparities in genetic testing completion were identified despite equivalent rates of genetic testing requests by neurologists. While Black patients had higher rates of insurance denials, insurance type itself accounted for the disparity in MGP but not CMA or ES/GS completion. Other unmeasured barriers stemming from systemic racism likely affected genetic testing among Black patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":19256,"journal":{"name":"Neurology","volume":"104 5","pages":"e210275"},"PeriodicalIF":8.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11837850/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000210275","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background and objectives: Genetic testing is critical for optimal diagnosis and management of pediatric neurology patients, but access is challenging. We investigated whether social determinants of health (SDOH) were associated with genetic testing among pediatric neurology patients in a retrospective observational study.
Methods: Electronic health record data were extracted from pediatric outpatients (0-18 years) evaluated at a single tertiary care institution between July 2018 and January 2020. Genetic testing requests, insurance denials, and test completion rates were compared among non-Hispanic single-racial or multiracial Black (Black) vs non-Hispanic single-racial White (White) patients. SDOH and clinical variables including ethnoracial identity, insurance type, Area Deprivation Index, rural urban commuting area, sex, age, diagnoses, and number of neurology visits were evaluated to identify associations with chromosomal microarray (CMA), multigene panel (MGP), and exome/genome sequencing (ES/GS) test completion.
Results: Of 11,371 patients (mean age 9.25 years; 46.1% female), 554 (4.9%) completed ≥1 genetic test in the study interval, with White patients nearly twice as likely to have completed ≥1 genetic test compared with Black patients (aOR 1.88, 95% CI 1.41-2.51). Outpatient pediatric neurology was the most common specialty through which testing was completed. Neurology provider request rates for genetic testing did not differ by patient ethnoracial identity, but insurance denial rates after neurology request were lower for White vs Black patients (relative rate ratio [RR] 0.44, 95% CI 0.27-0.73), and those with public insurance were less likely to complete genetic testing after it was requested through neurology (aOR 0.59, 95% CI 0.35-0.97). However, when considering individual genetic test types completed through any specialty, insurance type was significantly associated only with MGP completion (public vs private OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.40-0.77), not CMA or ES/GS.
Discussion: Marked ethnoracial disparities in genetic testing completion were identified despite equivalent rates of genetic testing requests by neurologists. While Black patients had higher rates of insurance denials, insurance type itself accounted for the disparity in MGP but not CMA or ES/GS completion. Other unmeasured barriers stemming from systemic racism likely affected genetic testing among Black patients.
背景和目的:基因检测对儿科神经患者的最佳诊断和管理至关重要,但获取具有挑战性。在一项回顾性观察性研究中,我们调查了儿童神经病学患者中健康的社会决定因素(SDOH)是否与基因检测相关。方法:从2018年7月至2020年1月在单一三级医疗机构评估的儿科门诊患者(0-18岁)中提取电子健康记录数据。对非西班牙裔单种族或多种族黑人(Black)与非西班牙裔单种族白人(White)患者进行基因检测请求、保险拒绝和检测完成率的比较。评估SDOH和临床变量,包括种族身份、保险类型、区域剥夺指数、农村城市通勤区域、性别、年龄、诊断和神经病学就诊次数,以确定与染色体微阵列(CMA)、多基因面板(MGP)和外显子组/基因组测序(ES/GS)测试完成情况的关系。结果:11371例患者(平均年龄9.25岁;46.1%女性),554例(4.9%)在研究期间完成≥1项基因检测,白人患者完成≥1项基因检测的可能性几乎是黑人患者的两倍(aOR 1.88, 95% CI 1.41-2.51)。门诊儿科神经病学是通过测试完成的最常见的专业。神经病学提供者要求进行基因检测的比率没有因患者的种族身份而不同,但白人患者与黑人患者在神经病学要求后的保险拒绝率较低(相对比率[RR] 0.44, 95% CI 0.27-0.73),并且那些有公共保险的患者在通过神经病学要求后完成基因检测的可能性较小(aOR 0.59, 95% CI 0.35-0.97)。然而,当考虑通过任何专业完成的个体基因检测类型时,保险类型仅与MGP完成程度显著相关(公立与私立OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.40-0.77),而与CMA或ES/GS无关。讨论:尽管神经科医生的基因检测要求率相当,但在基因检测完成程度上存在明显的种族差异。虽然黑人患者有更高的保险拒绝率,但保险类型本身解释了MGP的差异,而不是CMA或ES/GS完成度的差异。其他来自系统性种族主义的未测量障碍可能会影响黑人患者的基因检测。
期刊介绍:
Neurology, the official journal of the American Academy of Neurology, aspires to be the premier peer-reviewed journal for clinical neurology research. Its mission is to publish exceptional peer-reviewed original research articles, editorials, and reviews to improve patient care, education, clinical research, and professionalism in neurology.
As the leading clinical neurology journal worldwide, Neurology targets physicians specializing in nervous system diseases and conditions. It aims to advance the field by presenting new basic and clinical research that influences neurological practice. The journal is a leading source of cutting-edge, peer-reviewed information for the neurology community worldwide. Editorial content includes Research, Clinical/Scientific Notes, Views, Historical Neurology, NeuroImages, Humanities, Letters, and position papers from the American Academy of Neurology. The online version is considered the definitive version, encompassing all available content.
Neurology is indexed in prestigious databases such as MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Biological Abstracts®, PsycINFO®, Current Contents®, Web of Science®, CrossRef, and Google Scholar.