The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic in the United States has disproportionately impacted communities of color across the country. Focusing on COVID-19-attributable mortality, we expand upon a national comparative analysis of years of potential life lost (YPLL) attributable to COVID-19 by race/ethnicity (Bassett et al., 2020), estimating percentages of total YPLL for non-Hispanic Whites, non-Hispanic Blacks, Hispanics, non-Hispanic Asians, and non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Natives, contrasting them with their respective percent population shares, as well as age-adjusted YPLL rate ratios-anchoring comparisons to non-Hispanic Whites-in each of 45 states and the District of Columbia using data from the National Center for Health Statistics as of 30 December 2020. Using a novel Monte Carlo simulation procedure to perform estimation, our results reveal substantial racial/ethnic disparities in COVID-19-attributable YPLL across states, with a prevailing pattern of non-Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics experiencing disproportionately high and non-Hispanic Whites experiencing disproportionately low COVID-19-attributable YPLL. Furthermore, estimated disparities are generally more pronounced when measuring mortality in terms of YPLL compared to death counts, reflecting the greater intensity of the disparities at younger ages. We also find substantial state-to-state variability in the magnitudes of the estimated racial/ethnic disparities, suggesting that they are driven in large part by social determinants of health whose degree of association with race/ethnicity varies by state.

Purpose

Half of the 21-item Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) response categories are labeled (0 = No, 1 = Very little, 5 = Very much) and half are not (2, 3, and 4). We hypothesized that the unlabeled response options would not be more likely to be chosen at some place along the scale continuum than other response options and, therefore, not satisfy the monotonicity assumption of simple-summated scoring.

Methods

We performed exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of the MLHFQ items in a sample of 1437 adults in the Better Effectiveness After Transition-Heart Failure study. We evaluated the unlabeled response options using item characteristic curves from item response theory-graded response models for MLHFQ physical and emotional health scales. Then, we examined the impact of collapsing response options on correlations of scale scores with other variables.

Results

The sample was 46% female; 71% aged 65 or older; 11% Hispanic, 22% Black, 54% White, and 12% other. The unlabeled response options were rarely chosen. The standard approach to scoring and scores obtained by collapsing adjacent response categories yielded similar associations with other variables, indicating that the existing response options are problematic.

Conclusions

The unlabeled MLHFQ response options do not meet the assumptions of simple-summated scoring. Further assessment of the performance of the unlabeled response options and evaluation of alternative scoring approaches is recommended. Adding labels for response options in future administrations of the MLHFQ should be considered.