...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology >Provider Implicit Bias Impacts Pediatric Type 1 Diabetes Technology Recommendations in the United States: Findings from The Gatekeeper Study
【24h】

Provider Implicit Bias Impacts Pediatric Type 1 Diabetes Technology Recommendations in the United States: Findings from The Gatekeeper Study

机译:提供商隐含偏差影响儿科型1糖尿病技术建议在美国:看门人的研究结果研究

获取原文
           

摘要

Background: Diabetes technology use is associated with favorable type 1 diabetes (T1D) outcomes. American youth with public insurance, a proxy for low socioeconomic status, use less diabetes technology than those with private insurance. We aimed to evaluate the role of insurance-mediated provider implicit bias, defined as the systematic discrimination of youth with public insurance, on diabetes technology recommendations for youth with T1D in the United States. Methods: Multi-disciplinary pediatric diabetes providers completed a bias assessment comprised of a clinical vignette and ranking exercises ( n ?=?39). Provider bias was defined as providers: (1) recommending more technology for those on private insurance versus public insurance or (2) ranking insurance in the top 2 of 7 reasons to offer technology. Bias and provider characteristics were analyzed with descriptive statistics, group comparisons, and multivariate logistic regression. Results: The majority of providers [44.1?±?10.0?years old, 83% female, 79% non-Hispanic white, 49% physician, 12.2?±?10.0 practice-years] demonstrated bias ( n ?=?33/39, 84.6%). Compared to the group without bias, the group with bias had practiced longer (13.4±10.4?years vs 5.7?±?3.6?years, P ?=?.003) but otherwise had similar characteristics including age (44.4?±?10.2 vs 42.6?±?10.1, p?=?0.701). In the logistic regression, practice-years remained significant (OR?=?1.47, 95% CI [1.02,2.13]; P ?=?.007) when age, sex, race/ethnicity, provider role, percent public insurance served, and workplace location were included. Conclusions: Provider bias to recommend technology based on insurance was common in our cohort and increased with years in practice. There are likely many reasons for this finding, including healthcare system drivers, yet as gatekeepers to diabetes technology, providers may be contributing to inequities in pediatric T1D in the United States.
机译:背景:糖尿病技术用途与良好的1型糖尿病(T1D)结果相关。美国青年与公共保险,一个低社会经济地位的代理,使用较少的糖尿病技术而不是私人保险。我们旨在评估保险介导的提供商隐含偏差的作用,被定义为青年与公共保险的系统歧视,在美国T1D的青年糖尿病技术建议。方法:多学科儿科糖尿病提供商完成了由临床小插图和排名练习组成的偏差评估(N?= 39)。提供商偏见被定义为提供者:(1)为私人保险与公共保险或(2)排名保险提供更多技术,其中2个提供技术的前2个。通过描述性统计,组比较和多变量逻辑回归分析偏差和提供者特征。结果:大多数提供者[44.1吗?±10.0?岁,83%女性,79%非西班牙裔,49%的医师,12.2?±10.0练习 - 年份(n?= 33/39 ,84.6%)。与没有偏见的小组相比,偏见的群体效果更长(13.4±10.4?vs 5.7?±3.6?年,p?= 003),但否则包括年龄的类似特征(44.4?±10.2 vs 42.6?±10.1,p?= 0.701)。在Logistic回归中,练习 - 年仍然重要(或?=?1.47,95%CI [1.02,2.13]; P?= 007)当年龄,性别,种族/种族,提供者角色,公共保险百分比时,包括工作场所位置。结论:提供基于保险的推荐技术的提供商偏见在我们的队列中是常见的,并且在实践中增加了多年。这一发现可能有很多原因,包括医疗保健系统司机,然而作为糖尿病技术的守门人,提供商可能会导致美国儿科T1D的不公平。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号