Disparities in receipt of high-priority clinical preventive services

Introduction The purpose of this paper is to examine potential disparities in the receipt of high-priority, clinical preventive services among adults. Methods The study is based on a cross-sectional survey from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (M...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Discover health systems 2024-09, Vol.3 (1), Article 76
Hauptverfasser: Borsky, Amanda E., Zodet, Marc, Wolff, Tracy A., Ngo-Metzger, Quyen, Mueller, Nora, Bierman, Arlene S.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Introduction The purpose of this paper is to examine potential disparities in the receipt of high-priority, clinical preventive services among adults. Methods The study is based on a cross-sectional survey from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), 2018 and includes non-institutionalized adults age ≥ 35 in the United States (n = 14,615) . The primary outcome measure is a composite measure that assesses receipt of fifteen high-priority clinical preventive services. Results Results provide the first national estimates of disparities in receipt of all recommended high-priority preventive services. Receipt of all recommended preventive services among adults age ≥ 35 was low (6%). Multivariable regression analysis found sizable disparities associated with all sociodemographic characteristics examined. Black adults were 37% less likely than white adults (OR: 0.63, CI 0.46-0.86); those with a high school education or less were less than half as likely as college graduates (≤ HS OR: 0.44, CI 0.32-0.61, HS grad OR: 0.46, CI 0.36-0.59); poor and low income individuals were much less likely than those with higher incomes (Poor OR: 0.66, CI 0.48-0.90, low income OR: 0.70, CI 0.53-0.92); the uninsured were 89% less likely than those with private insurance (OR: 0.11, CI 0.04-0.27); adults who spoke a language other than English had 35% lower odds than those who spoke English (OR: 0.65, CI 0.45-0.95) to receive all high-priority services. Conclusions Improving population health depends upon effective strategies to increase uptake of high-priority preventive services while reducing disparities in receipt of these services.
ISSN:2731-7501
2731-7501
DOI:10.1007/s44250-024-00138-x