There are many reasons why gender-concordant care benefits patients and is requested by them. For training hospitals, however, such requests present challenges as well as opportunities in providing patient-centered care. Responding to a case in which a female patient who is having a routine exam refuses care from a male medical student, we discuss ethical principles involved in gender-concordant care requests, when it is appropriate to question such requests, and a team-based approach to responding to them.

The objective of this study is to compare self-reported preconception care utilization (PCU) among Medicaid-covered births to Medicaid claims. We identified all Medicaid-covered births to women ages 15-45 in 26 states in the year 2012 among the Pregnancy Risk Assessment and Monitoring System (PRAMS) survey and Medicaid Analytic eXtract (MAX) claims data, and identified preconception services in the latter using diagnosis codes published by Health and Human Services Office of Population Affairs. We fit mixed-effects logistic regression models for the probability of PCU on sociodemographic factors (age, race, and ethnicity) and clinical diagnoses (depression, diabetes, or hypertension), separately for each dataset. Among 652,929 women delivering in MAX, 28.1% received at least one claims-based preconception service while an estimated 23.6% (95% CI 22.1-25.3) of PRAMS respondents reported receiving preconception care. Adjusting for age, chronic diseases, and state, PCU rates in both MAX and PRAMS were higher for non-Hispanic Black versus non-Hispanic White women (OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.49-1.54 and OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.60-2.62, respectively). Adjusting for differences in age, race and ethnicity, and state, PCU rates were higher for patients with diabetes (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.29-1.40 and OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.16-2.85) or hypertension (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.18-1.27 and OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.41-2.44). While Hispanic and Asian women were also more likely to report PCU than their non-Hispanic White counterparts (OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.53-2.80 and OR 3.37, 95% CI 2.28-4.98), they were less likely to have received it (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.73-0.75 and OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.63-0.67). In conclusion, comparing self-report to claims measures of PCU, we found similar trends in the differences between non-Hispanic Black and White women, and between those with vs. without diabetes and hypertension. However, the two data sources differed in trends in other racial/ethnic groups (differences between Hispanic vs. non-Hispanic White women, and between Asian vs. non-Hispanic White women), and in those with vs. without depression. This suggests that while Medicaid claims can be a useful tool for studying preconception care, they may miss certain types of care among some sub-groups of the population or be subject to reporting differences that are hard to surmise. Both data sets have potential benefits and drawbacks as research tools.

Abundant evidence demonstrates that enduring, endemic racism plays an important role in determining patient health. This commentary reviews a patient case about disease self-management and subsequent health outcomes that are shaped by social and economic circumstances. We analyze the case using a framework for social care developed in 2019 by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). We then propose that the NASEM framework be adapted by adding the category abolition, which could make the other social care practices transformative for historically marginalized populations.

OBJECTIVE: To use evidence on addressing racism in social care intervention research to create a framework for advancing health equity for all populations with marginalized social identities (e.g., race, gender, and sexual orientation). Such groups have disproportionate social needs (e.g., food insecurity) and negative social determinants of health (SDOH; e.g., poverty). We recommend how the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) could advance health equity for marginalized populations through social care research and care delivery. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: This commentary is informed by a literature review of social care interventions that were affiliated with healthcare systems; input from health equity researchers, policymakers, and community leaders attending the AHRQ Health Equity Summit; and consensus of the authors. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We recommend that AHRQ: (1) create an ecosystem that values research on SDOH and the effectiveness and implementation of social care interventions in the healthcare sector; (2) work with other federal agencies to (a) develop position statements with actionable recommendations about racism and other systems that perpetuate marginalization based on social identity and (b) develop aligned, complementary approaches to research and care delivery that address social marginalization; (3) advance both inclusive care delivery and inclusive research teams; (4) advance understanding of racism as a social determinant of health and effective strategies to mitigate its adverse impact on health; (5) advance the creation and scaling of effective strategies for addressing SDOH in healthcare systems, particularly in co-creation with community partners; and (6) require social care intervention researchers to use methods that advance our understanding of social health equity. CONCLUSIONS: AHRQ, as a federal agency, could help advance health equity using a range of strategies, including using the agencys levers to ensure AHRQ stakeholders examine and address the unique experiences of socially marginalized populations in SDOH and social care intervention research.

Importance

Social needs interventions aim to improve health outcomes and mitigate inequities by addressing health-related social needs, such as lack of transportation or food insecurity. However, it is not clear whether these studies are reducing racial or ethnic inequities.

Objective

To understand how studies of interventions addressing social needs among multiracial or multiethnic populations conceptualize and analyze differential intervention outcomes by race or ethnicity.

Evidence review

Sources included a scoping review of systematic searches of PubMed and the Cochrane Library from January 1, 1995, through November 29, 2021, expert suggestions, and hand searches of key citations. Eligible studies evaluated interventions addressing social needs; reported behavioral, health, or utilization outcomes or harms; and were conducted in multiracial or multiethnic populations. Two reviewers independently assessed titles, abstracts, and full text for inclusion. The team developed a framework to assess whether the study was "conceptually thoughtful" for understanding root causes of racial health inequities (ie, noted that race or ethnicity are markers of exposure to racism) and whether analyses were "analytically informative" for advancing racial health equity research (ie, examined differential intervention impacts by race or ethnicity).

Findings

Of 152 studies conducted in multiracial or multiethnic populations, 44 studies included race or ethnicity in their analyses; of these, only 4 (9%) were conceptually thoughtful. Twenty-one studies (14%) were analytically informative. Seven of 21 analytically informative studies reported differences in outcomes by race or ethnicity, whereas 14 found no differences. Among the 7 that found differential outcomes, 4 found the interventions were associated with improved outcomes for minoritized racial or ethnic populations or reduced inequities between minoritized and White populations. No studies were powered to detect differences.

Conclusions and relevance

In this review of a scoping review, studies of social needs interventions in multiracial or multiethnic populations were rarely conceptually thoughtful for understanding root causes of racial health inequities and infrequently conducted informative analyses on intervention effectiveness by race or ethnicity. Future work should use a theoretically sound conceptualization of how race (as a proxy for racism) affects social drivers of health and use this understanding to ensure social needs interventions benefit minoritized racial and ethnic groups facing social and structural barriers to health.

Obesity and type 2 diabetes disproportionately impact U.S. racial and ethnic minority communities and low-income populations. Improvements in implementing efficacious interventions to reduce the incidence of type 2 diabetes are underway (i.e., the National Diabetes Prevention Program), but challenges in effectively scaling-up successful interventions and reaching at-risk populations remain. In October 2017, the National Institutes of Health convened a workshop to understand how to (1) address socioeconomic and other environmental conditions that perpetuate disparities in the burden of obesity and type 2 diabetes; (2) design effective prevention and treatment strategies that are accessible, feasible, culturally relevant, and acceptable to diverse population groups; and (3) achieve sustainable health improvement approaches in communities with the greatest burden of these diseases. Common features of guiding frameworks to understand and address disparities and promote health equity were described. Promising research directions were identified in numerous areas, including study design, methodology, and core metrics; program implementation and scalability; the integration of medical care and social services; strategies to enhance patient empowerment; and understanding and addressing the impact of psychosocial stress on disease onset and progression in addition to factors that support resiliency and health.

Obesity and type 2 diabetes disproportionately impact U.S. racial and ethnic minority communities and low-income populations. Improvements in implementing efficacious interventions to reduce the incidence of type 2 diabetes are underway (i.e., the National Diabetes Prevention Program), but challenges in effectively scaling-up successful interventions and reaching at-risk populations remain. In October 2017, the National Institutes of Health convened a workshop to understand how to (1) address socioeconomic and other environmental conditions that perpetuate disparities in the burden of obesity and type 2 diabetes; (2) design effective prevention and treatment strategies that are accessible, feasible, culturally relevant, and acceptable to diverse population groups; and (3) achieve sustainable health improvement approaches in communities with the greatest burden of these diseases. Common features of guiding frameworks to understand and address disparities and promote health equity were described. Promising research directions were identified in numerous areas, including study design, methodology, and core metrics; program implementation and scalability; the integration of medical care and social services; strategies to enhance patient empowerment; and understanding and addressing the impact of psychosocial stress on disease onset and progression in addition to factors that support resiliency and health.

The integration of technologies such as continuous glucose monitors, insulin pumps, and smart pens into diabetes management has the potential to support the transformation of health care services that provide a higher quality of diabetes care, lower costs and administrative burdens, and greater empowerment for people with diabetes and their caregivers. Among people with diabetes, older adults are a distinct subpopulation in terms of their clinical heterogeneity, care priorities, and technology integration. The scientific evidence and clinical experience with these technologies among older adults are growing but are still modest. In this review, we describe the current knowledge regarding the impact of technology in older adults with diabetes, identify major barriers to the use of existing and emerging technologies, describe areas of care that could be optimized by technology, and identify areas for future research to fulfill the potential promise of evidence-based technology integrated into care for this important population.