Pub Date : 2025-06-01Epub Date: 2025-02-08DOI: 10.1177/10775587251316917
Mahdi Neshan, Vennila Padmanaban, Naleef Fareed, Samantha M Ruff, Elizabeth Palmer Kelly, Timothy M Pawlik
Decision control preferences (DCPs) refer to the degree of control patients' desire over their medical treatment. Several validated tools exist to evaluate a patient's DCPs, yet there is no universally used instrument and their use in clinical settings is lacking. We provide a systematic comparative summary of available DCP tools. Following a systematic database search, English language studies across medical contexts and patient populations were eligible if a validated assessment tool to evaluate patient DCPs was reported. Among the 15 tools that met inclusion criteria, the autonomy preference index (API) and the control preference scale (CPS) were the most used tools (API: 40%, CPS: 26.6%). Most studies (n = 9) sought to identify the information-seeking preferences of patients as a critical component of decision-making. Only few studies evaluated providers' perceptions of patient preferences. Considering the variety of patients' DCPs, implementation of DCP tools can optimize shared decision-making and improve patient outcomes.
{"title":"Patient Decisional Preferences: A Systematic Review of Instruments Used to Determine Patients' Preferred Role in Decision-Making.","authors":"Mahdi Neshan, Vennila Padmanaban, Naleef Fareed, Samantha M Ruff, Elizabeth Palmer Kelly, Timothy M Pawlik","doi":"10.1177/10775587251316917","DOIUrl":"10.1177/10775587251316917","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Decision control preferences (DCPs) refer to the degree of control patients' desire over their medical treatment. Several validated tools exist to evaluate a patient's DCPs, yet there is no universally used instrument and their use in clinical settings is lacking. We provide a systematic comparative summary of available DCP tools. Following a systematic database search, English language studies across medical contexts and patient populations were eligible if a validated assessment tool to evaluate patient DCPs was reported. Among the 15 tools that met inclusion criteria, the autonomy preference index (API) and the control preference scale (CPS) were the most used tools (API: 40%, CPS: 26.6%). Most studies (<i>n</i> = 9) sought to identify the information-seeking preferences of patients as a critical component of decision-making. Only few studies evaluated providers' perceptions of patient preferences. Considering the variety of patients' DCPs, implementation of DCP tools can optimize shared decision-making and improve patient outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":51127,"journal":{"name":"Medical Care Research and Review","volume":" ","pages":"225-239"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143374934","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-06-01Epub Date: 2025-02-19DOI: 10.1177/10775587251318407
Seiyoun Kim, Mingyu Qi, R Tamara Konetzka, Rachel M Werner
Medicare home health coverage is an important resource for Medicare beneficiaries requiring health care at home. However, there have been changes in the United States health care system that might impact home health utilization such as pressures to constrain Medicare spending, growth in Medicare Advantage (MA) plan enrollment, decline in institutional long-term care and growth of Medicaid home- and community-based services. Given these changes, we examined home health care use trends among beneficiaries enrolled in traditional Medicare (TM) and MA from 2010 to 2020. We separately examined home health episodes that were initiated after a hospital or skilled nursing facility discharge and those initiated within the community and among dually and non-dually eligible beneficiaries. Home health use decreased among TM enrollees for both community-initiated and post-discharge needs but increased among MA enrollees for community-initiated home health use. Increases in community-initiated home health use were concentrated in non-dually eligible beneficiaries.
{"title":"Home Health Care Use Among Medicare Beneficiaries From 2010 to 2020.","authors":"Seiyoun Kim, Mingyu Qi, R Tamara Konetzka, Rachel M Werner","doi":"10.1177/10775587251318407","DOIUrl":"10.1177/10775587251318407","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Medicare home health coverage is an important resource for Medicare beneficiaries requiring health care at home. However, there have been changes in the United States health care system that might impact home health utilization such as pressures to constrain Medicare spending, growth in Medicare Advantage (MA) plan enrollment, decline in institutional long-term care and growth of Medicaid home- and community-based services. Given these changes, we examined home health care use trends among beneficiaries enrolled in traditional Medicare (TM) and MA from 2010 to 2020. We separately examined home health episodes that were initiated after a hospital or skilled nursing facility discharge and those initiated within the community and among dually and non-dually eligible beneficiaries. Home health use decreased among TM enrollees for both community-initiated and post-discharge needs but increased among MA enrollees for community-initiated home health use. Increases in community-initiated home health use were concentrated in non-dually eligible beneficiaries.</p>","PeriodicalId":51127,"journal":{"name":"Medical Care Research and Review","volume":" ","pages":"260-268"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12018719/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143460563","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-06-01Epub Date: 2024-12-30DOI: 10.1177/10775587241304140
Ashlee Korsberg, Sarah L Cornelius, Fares Awa, James O'Malley, Erika L Moen
Social network analysis is the study of the structure of relationships between social entities. Access to health care administrative datasets has facilitated use of "patient-sharing networks" to infer relationships between health care providers based on the extent to which they have encounters with common patients. The structure and nature of patient-sharing relationships can reflect observed or latent aspects of health care delivery systems, such as collaboration and influence. We conducted a scoping review of peer-reviewed studies that derived patient-sharing network measure(s) in the analyses. There were 134 papers included in the full-text review. We identified and created a centralized resource of 118 measures and uncovered three major themes captured by them: Influential and Key Players, Care Coordination and Teamwork, and Network Structure and Access to Care. Researchers may use this review to inform their use of patient-sharing network measures and to guide the development of novel measures.
{"title":"A Scoping Review of Multilevel Patient-Sharing Network Measures in Health Services Research.","authors":"Ashlee Korsberg, Sarah L Cornelius, Fares Awa, James O'Malley, Erika L Moen","doi":"10.1177/10775587241304140","DOIUrl":"10.1177/10775587241304140","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Social network analysis is the study of the structure of relationships between social entities. Access to health care administrative datasets has facilitated use of \"patient-sharing networks\" to infer relationships between health care providers based on the extent to which they have encounters with common patients. The structure and nature of patient-sharing relationships can reflect observed or latent aspects of health care delivery systems, such as collaboration and influence. We conducted a scoping review of peer-reviewed studies that derived patient-sharing network measure(s) in the analyses. There were 134 papers included in the full-text review. We identified and created a centralized resource of 118 measures and uncovered three major themes captured by them: <i>Influential and Key Players, Care Coordination and Teamwork</i>, and <i>Network Structure and Access to Care</i>. Researchers may use this review to inform their use of patient-sharing network measures and to guide the development of novel measures.</p>","PeriodicalId":51127,"journal":{"name":"Medical Care Research and Review","volume":"82 3","pages":"203-224"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12338495/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144057975","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-04-01Epub Date: 2024-11-19DOI: 10.1177/10775587241296182
Lili Xu, Hari Sharma, George L Wehby
This study estimates the effect of nursing home closure on occupancy, net profit margin, and operating margin of nearby nursing homes. We use national nursing home data from 2009 to 2019 from Medicare cost reports, Medicare Provider of Services (POS), and LTCfocus.org data. Using the Callaway and Sant'Anna difference-in-differences model, we compare the changes in occupancy, net profit margin, and operating margin between incumbent nursing homes in markets with any closure and nursing homes in markets without a closure, overall, and across rurality. Our findings suggest that nursing home closure improves the occupancy rates of remaining nursing homes in the same market in rural areas but there is little evidence of effects in metropolitan and micropolitan areas. Nursing home regulators and local officials should consider the long-term care market heterogeneity when considering interventions targeted at nursing home closure.
{"title":"Effects of Nursing Home Closures on Occupancy and Finances of Nearby Nursing Homes.","authors":"Lili Xu, Hari Sharma, George L Wehby","doi":"10.1177/10775587241296182","DOIUrl":"10.1177/10775587241296182","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study estimates the effect of nursing home closure on occupancy, net profit margin, and operating margin of nearby nursing homes. We use national nursing home data from 2009 to 2019 from Medicare cost reports, Medicare Provider of Services (POS), and LTCfocus.org data. Using the Callaway and Sant'Anna difference-in-differences model, we compare the changes in occupancy, net profit margin, and operating margin between incumbent nursing homes in markets with any closure and nursing homes in markets without a closure, overall, and across rurality. Our findings suggest that nursing home closure improves the occupancy rates of remaining nursing homes in the same market in rural areas but there is little evidence of effects in metropolitan and micropolitan areas. Nursing home regulators and local officials should consider the long-term care market heterogeneity when considering interventions targeted at nursing home closure.</p>","PeriodicalId":51127,"journal":{"name":"Medical Care Research and Review","volume":" ","pages":"153-164"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142669990","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-04-01Epub Date: 2024-12-05DOI: 10.1177/10775587241300645
Marc N Elliott, Megan K Beckett, Christopher W Cohea, William G Lehrman, Elizabeth Goldstein, James H Schaefer, Laura A Giordano, Debra Saliba
This article estimates differences and difference-in-differences in patient experiences for Veterans Health Administration (VA) compared to non-VA patients in 2017, when there was concern about the health quality of VA hospitals, and in 2021, the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic, both overall, and for specific patient groups. We used data from the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey. In 2017, HCAHPS performance was somewhat better for non-VA than for VA hospitals, with Care Transition being the only measure for which VA hospitals performed better on average. By 2021, HCAHPS performance was better for VA than for non-VA hospitals for all but two measures (Quietness and Discharge Information), for which there were no differences from non-VA hospitals. In 2017, the VA provided worse experiences than non-VA hospitals for Black and poor-health patients; in 2021, VA hospitals outperformed non-VA hospitals for these, and all patient subgroups examined.
{"title":"Inpatient Care Experiences Differ for VA and Non-VA Hospitals, With Different Patterns by Health, Race, and Ethnicity.","authors":"Marc N Elliott, Megan K Beckett, Christopher W Cohea, William G Lehrman, Elizabeth Goldstein, James H Schaefer, Laura A Giordano, Debra Saliba","doi":"10.1177/10775587241300645","DOIUrl":"10.1177/10775587241300645","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article estimates differences and difference-in-differences in patient experiences for Veterans Health Administration (VA) compared to non-VA patients in 2017, when there was concern about the health quality of VA hospitals, and in 2021, the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic, both overall, and for specific patient groups. We used data from the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey. In 2017, HCAHPS performance was somewhat better for non-VA than for VA hospitals, with Care Transition being the only measure for which VA hospitals performed better on average. By 2021, HCAHPS performance was better for VA than for non-VA hospitals for all but two measures (Quietness and Discharge Information), for which there were no differences from non-VA hospitals. In 2017, the VA provided worse experiences than non-VA hospitals for Black and poor-health patients; in 2021, VA hospitals outperformed non-VA hospitals for these, and all patient subgroups examined.</p>","PeriodicalId":51127,"journal":{"name":"Medical Care Research and Review","volume":" ","pages":"195-200"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142787609","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-04-01Epub Date: 2025-01-23DOI: 10.1177/10775587241313092
Emma M Achola, Amal N Trivedi, Daeho Kim, David J Meyers, Hiren Varma, Laura M Keohane
Post-acute care users in Medicare Advantage (MA) plans may seek coverage changes if facing issues with plan benefits. In 2019, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services extended the deadline to disenroll from an MA plan from February 14 to March 31 and, for the first time, permitted beneficiaries to switch to a different MA plan instead of traditional Medicare. Using 2016-2019 Medicare administrative data, we implemented a difference-in-differences approach to evaluate the impact of this policy on disenrollment from a plan within 1 month of initiating skilled nursing facility or home health services. When MA disenrollment rules became more flexible, overall rates of exiting MA plans did not change. Switching to a different MA plan increased after the policy change, but this outcome was so rare that this increase did not affect overall rates of exiting MA plans.
{"title":"The Effect of Extending the Window to Disenroll From Medicare Advantage Among Post-Acute Users.","authors":"Emma M Achola, Amal N Trivedi, Daeho Kim, David J Meyers, Hiren Varma, Laura M Keohane","doi":"10.1177/10775587241313092","DOIUrl":"10.1177/10775587241313092","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Post-acute care users in Medicare Advantage (MA) plans may seek coverage changes if facing issues with plan benefits. In 2019, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services extended the deadline to disenroll from an MA plan from February 14 to March 31 and, for the first time, permitted beneficiaries to switch to a different MA plan instead of traditional Medicare. Using 2016-2019 Medicare administrative data, we implemented a difference-in-differences approach to evaluate the impact of this policy on disenrollment from a plan within 1 month of initiating skilled nursing facility or home health services. When MA disenrollment rules became more flexible, overall rates of exiting MA plans did not change. Switching to a different MA plan increased after the policy change, but this outcome was so rare that this increase did not affect overall rates of exiting MA plans.</p>","PeriodicalId":51127,"journal":{"name":"Medical Care Research and Review","volume":" ","pages":"165-172"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11872052/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143029793","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-04-01Epub Date: 2025-01-19DOI: 10.1177/10775587241308934
Michael D Rosko, Kate J Li, Mona Al-Amin
This study assessed the distribution of Covid Provider Relief Funds (PRFs) to 3,886 private and public general acute care hospitals during 2020-2022. Marginal effects from two-part regression were analyzed. More than 13% of study hospitals did not receive PRFs. Some targeted groups of hospitals, that is, safety-net hospitals and high-impact hospitals (those with high COVID-19 admissions), were the most likely to receive PRFs. Hospitals providing the most uncompensated care, and facilities serving counties with high concentrations of Black or Hispanic populations, were less likely to receive PRFs. Among facilities receiving subsidies, rural, high-impact, safety-net, and financially vulnerable hospitals received more PRFs in relation to their total revenues. Those serving impoverished communities received a larger proportion of PRFs relative to their total revenues, while those in areas with a high concentration of Hispanics received a smaller proportionate subsidy.
{"title":"COVID-19 Provider Relief Funds Distribution by Hospital Characteristics.","authors":"Michael D Rosko, Kate J Li, Mona Al-Amin","doi":"10.1177/10775587241308934","DOIUrl":"10.1177/10775587241308934","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study assessed the distribution of Covid Provider Relief Funds (PRFs) to 3,886 private and public general acute care hospitals during 2020-2022. Marginal effects from two-part regression were analyzed. More than 13% of study hospitals did not receive PRFs. Some targeted groups of hospitals, that is, safety-net hospitals and high-impact hospitals (those with high COVID-19 admissions), were the most likely to receive PRFs. Hospitals providing the most uncompensated care, and facilities serving counties with high concentrations of Black or Hispanic populations, were less likely to receive PRFs. Among facilities receiving subsidies, rural, high-impact, safety-net, and financially vulnerable hospitals received more PRFs in relation to their total revenues. Those serving impoverished communities received a larger proportion of PRFs relative to their total revenues, while those in areas with a high concentration of Hispanics received a smaller proportionate subsidy.</p>","PeriodicalId":51127,"journal":{"name":"Medical Care Research and Review","volume":" ","pages":"173-183"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143015566","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-04-01Epub Date: 2024-12-10DOI: 10.1177/10775587241298566
Jung A Kang, Denise D Quigley, Ashley M Chastain, Hsin S Ma, Jingjing Shang, Patricia W Stone
This systematic review investigates disparities in COVID-19 outcomes (infections, hospitalizations, and deaths) between urban and rural populations in the United States. Of the 3,091 articles screened, 55 were selected. Most studies (n = 43) conducted national analyses, using 2020 data, with some extending into 2021. Findings show urban areas had higher COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations in 2020, while rural areas saw increased cases in 2021 and mixed hospitalization results. Urban areas also had higher mortality rates in 2020, with rural rates rising in 2021 and 2022. Most studies did not explore reasons for urban/rural differences. The few that did found that vulnerable groups, including racially and ethnically minoritized populations, older adults, and those with comorbidities and lower socioeconomic status and vaccination rates, experienced exacerbated disparities in rural regions. COVID-19 outcomes varied over time and by area due to population density, healthcare infrastructure, and socioeconomic factors. Tailored interventions are essential for health equity and effective policies.
{"title":"Urban and Rural Disparities in COVID-19 Outcomes in the United States: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Jung A Kang, Denise D Quigley, Ashley M Chastain, Hsin S Ma, Jingjing Shang, Patricia W Stone","doi":"10.1177/10775587241298566","DOIUrl":"10.1177/10775587241298566","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This systematic review investigates disparities in COVID-19 outcomes (infections, hospitalizations, and deaths) between urban and rural populations in the United States. Of the 3,091 articles screened, 55 were selected. Most studies (<i>n</i> = 43) conducted national analyses, using 2020 data, with some extending into 2021. Findings show urban areas had higher COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations in 2020, while rural areas saw increased cases in 2021 and mixed hospitalization results. Urban areas also had higher mortality rates in 2020, with rural rates rising in 2021 and 2022. Most studies did not explore reasons for urban/rural differences. The few that did found that vulnerable groups, including racially and ethnically minoritized populations, older adults, and those with comorbidities and lower socioeconomic status and vaccination rates, experienced exacerbated disparities in rural regions. COVID-19 outcomes varied over time and by area due to population density, healthcare infrastructure, and socioeconomic factors. Tailored interventions are essential for health equity and effective policies.</p>","PeriodicalId":51127,"journal":{"name":"Medical Care Research and Review","volume":" ","pages":"119-136"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11871999/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142803286","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-04-01Epub Date: 2024-12-09DOI: 10.1177/10775587241298029
Minakshi Raj, TsungYen Chen, Bradley Iott, Denise Anthony
Little is known about online medical record (OMR) use among caregivers, including changes in OMR use through the COVID-19 pandemic. This study compares OMR use among caregivers and non-caregivers before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, identifies reasons for non-use, and examines the association between caregiving status and characteristics with OMR use. Secondary data analysis of the nationally representative Health Information National Trends Survey data from 2018 to 2022 (n = 14,034). Caregivers were more likely to use the OMR post-COVID (51.8%) compared with pre-COVID (44.7%). Caregiving was significantly associated with increased likelihood of OMR use post-COVID (odds ratio = 1.67), but not pre-COVID. The increased use of OMR among caregivers during COVID-19 highlights the potential of OMRs as a support tool for caregivers' health and well-being. Interventions and policies to improve OMR engagement must address persisting disparities across demographic groups and encourage caregivers' OMR use to support their role and enhance their personal health management.
{"title":"Changes in Caregivers' Use of the Online Medical Record Pre- and Post-COVID: Analysis of the Health Information National Trends Survey, 2018-2022.","authors":"Minakshi Raj, TsungYen Chen, Bradley Iott, Denise Anthony","doi":"10.1177/10775587241298029","DOIUrl":"10.1177/10775587241298029","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Little is known about online medical record (OMR) use among caregivers, including changes in OMR use through the COVID-19 pandemic. This study compares OMR use among caregivers and non-caregivers before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, identifies reasons for non-use, and examines the association between caregiving status and characteristics with OMR use. Secondary data analysis of the nationally representative Health Information National Trends Survey data from 2018 to 2022 (<i>n</i> = 14,034). Caregivers were more likely to use the OMR post-COVID (51.8%) compared with pre-COVID (44.7%). Caregiving was significantly associated with increased likelihood of OMR use post-COVID (odds ratio = 1.67), but not pre-COVID. The increased use of OMR among caregivers during COVID-19 highlights the potential of OMRs as a support tool for caregivers' health and well-being. Interventions and policies to improve OMR engagement must address persisting disparities across demographic groups and encourage caregivers' OMR use to support their role and enhance their personal health management.</p>","PeriodicalId":51127,"journal":{"name":"Medical Care Research and Review","volume":" ","pages":"184-194"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142795968","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-04-01Epub Date: 2024-10-14DOI: 10.1177/10775587241285135
Sarah MacCarthy, Peyton Miller, Ninez A Ponce, Marc N Elliott
We examined peer-reviewed publications analyzing data from the English GP Patient Survey (GPPS), U.S. National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), and California Health Interview Survey (CHIS) to explore how the health of sexual minority populations varies across settings and subgroups. We searched for English language articles published 2011-2022, screening abstracts (n = 112), reviewing full text (n = 97), and extracting data (n = 85). We conducted a content analysis to identify patterns across settings for sexual minority people compared with heterosexual counterparts and each other. Across all settings, sexual minority adults had poorer health care access, worse health outcomes and patient experiences, more detrimental health behaviors, and greater health care services utilization (reflecting risk awareness and need). When subgroup data were reported, differences were greater among women, except for HIV and related cancers, which were most prevalent among sexual minority men. Sexual minority people generally reported significantly worse health access, outcomes, and behaviors in all three settings.
{"title":"Assessing Narrative Patterns in Health Access, Outcomes, and Behaviors Across Three Data Sets From England, the United States, and California for Sexual Minority Adults.","authors":"Sarah MacCarthy, Peyton Miller, Ninez A Ponce, Marc N Elliott","doi":"10.1177/10775587241285135","DOIUrl":"10.1177/10775587241285135","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We examined peer-reviewed publications analyzing data from the English GP Patient Survey (GPPS), U.S. National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), and California Health Interview Survey (CHIS) to explore how the health of sexual minority populations varies across settings and subgroups. We searched for English language articles published 2011-2022, screening abstracts (<i>n</i> = 112), reviewing full text (<i>n</i> = 97), and extracting data (<i>n</i> = 85). We conducted a content analysis to identify patterns across settings for sexual minority people compared with heterosexual counterparts and each other. Across all settings, sexual minority adults had poorer health care access, worse health outcomes and patient experiences, more detrimental health behaviors, and greater health care services utilization (reflecting risk awareness and need). When subgroup data were reported, differences were greater among women, except for HIV and related cancers, which were most prevalent among sexual minority men. Sexual minority people generally reported significantly worse health access, outcomes, and behaviors in all three settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":51127,"journal":{"name":"Medical Care Research and Review","volume":" ","pages":"137-152"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142480112","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}