Ophthalmic epidemiology · 2022
Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Dry Eye Diagnosis and Care.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Cui David, Mathews Priya M, Li Gavin, Guo Lee, VanCourt Shanna, Saldanha Ian J, Karamursel Akpek Esen
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To investigate health disparities in racial and ethnic minorities with dry eye.
METHODS: Medical records were reviewed for demographics, socioeconomic factors, treatments, and objective dry eye parameters. Race/ethnicity was self-reported as delineated by the U.S. Census. The reference group comprised of randomly selected White patients, with number equal to the largest minority group.
RESULTS: The study included 465 patients (157 Black, 157 White, 85 Asian, and 66 Hispanic). Compared to White (3.2%) patients, larger proportion of minorities used Medicaid or lacked health insurance (Black 8.3%, P = .054; Asian 10.6%, P = .019; Hispanic 18.2%, P < .001). Black and Hispanic patients had lower estimated median household income than Whites (White $98,472, Black $75,554, P < .001; Asian $105,503, P = .088; Hispanic $86,839, P = .030). Prior to presentation, fewer minority patients received prescription treatments or procedures (White 61.8%; Black 30.6%, P < .001; Asian 43.5%, P = .006; Hispanic 43.9%, P = .014). Although at baseline visit minorities had worse mean conjunctival (White, 1.7; Black 2.2, P = .136, Asian 2.4, P = .022; Hispanic 2.6, P = .005) and corneal staining scores (White, 1.6; Black 2.5, P < .001; Asian 2.3, P = .003; Hispanic 2.4, P = .001), no differences were noted at final visit.
CONCLUSION: Minorities presented with worse objective dry eye parameters, and less prior dry eye care. Income and health care access may not fully explain the observed undertreatment at presentation. Differential management by eye care providers and patient attitudes warrant further investigation.
METHODS: Medical records were reviewed for demographics, socioeconomic factors, treatments, and objective dry eye parameters. Race/ethnicity was self-reported as delineated by the U.S. Census. The reference group comprised of randomly selected White patients, with number equal to the largest minority group.
RESULTS: The study included 465 patients (157 Black, 157 White, 85 Asian, and 66 Hispanic). Compared to White (3.2%) patients, larger proportion of minorities used Medicaid or lacked health insurance (Black 8.3%, P = .054; Asian 10.6%, P = .019; Hispanic 18.2%, P < .001). Black and Hispanic patients had lower estimated median household income than Whites (White $98,472, Black $75,554, P < .001; Asian $105,503, P = .088; Hispanic $86,839, P = .030). Prior to presentation, fewer minority patients received prescription treatments or procedures (White 61.8%; Black 30.6%, P < .001; Asian 43.5%, P = .006; Hispanic 43.9%, P = .014). Although at baseline visit minorities had worse mean conjunctival (White, 1.7; Black 2.2, P = .136, Asian 2.4, P = .022; Hispanic 2.6, P = .005) and corneal staining scores (White, 1.6; Black 2.5, P < .001; Asian 2.3, P = .003; Hispanic 2.4, P = .001), no differences were noted at final visit.
CONCLUSION: Minorities presented with worse objective dry eye parameters, and less prior dry eye care. Income and health care access may not fully explain the observed undertreatment at presentation. Differential management by eye care providers and patient attitudes warrant further investigation.