low-SES Patients Research Articles

Value of a quality label and European healthcare professionals' willingness to recommend health apps: An experimental vignette study.

This study aimed to evaluate healthcare professionals' (HCPs') willingness to recommend health apps presented with versus without the CEN-ISO/TS 82304-2 health app quality label. The study was an experimental vignette study describing 12 short hypothetical scenarios, with Label (absent vs present) as a between and Type of App (prevention vs self-monitoring vs healthcare) and Patient Socioeconomic Status (low vs high) as within-subjects factors. The main outcome measure was HCPs' willingness to recommend apps. A total of 116 HCPs took part in the study. A significant main effect of the label was found. Further, HCPs were most willing to recommend self-management apps and more willing to recommend apps to high as opposed to low SES patients. However, the effect of the label did not differ between apps or according to patients' SES. Results confirm that the quality label has potential for increasing willingness to changing HCPs' recommendation behavior.

Racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic diversity and outcomes of patients with graft-versus-host disease: a CIBMTR analysis

AbstractSocioeconomic status (SES) and race/ethnicity have been associated with the outcomes of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HCT). Certain aspects of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) management, such as the need for long-term care, prolonged immunosuppressive treatment, and close follow-up for complications, may exacerbate disparities. Adults (≥18 years) reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research who underwent a first allo-HCT for acute leukemia, myelodysplastic syndrome, or myeloproliferative neoplasm between 2008 and 2018 were included. End points for those developing GVHD included overall survival (OS), transplant-related mortality (TRM), and disease relapse. Models were adjusted for patient- and transplant-related variables. A 2-sided P value < .01 was considered significant. Among the 14 825 allo-HCT recipients, 6259 (42.2%) and 6675 (45.0%) patients developed acute GVHD (aGVHD) and chronic GVHD (cGVHD), respectively. Among patients with aGVHD, non-Hispanic Black patients had increased TRM and overall mortality compared with non-Hispanic White patients; this association disappeared when severity of aGVHD was included in the model. Lower SES was associated with increased risk of disease relapse but not OS or TRM. In patients who developed cGVHD, race and ethnicity were not associated with OS, TRM, or disease relapse. However, the highest quartile of annual household income (≥$80 000) had improved OS and reduced TRM compared with the lowest quartile, after adjusting for race and ethnicity. In summary, race/ethnicity and SES are associated with outcomes after GVHD. Optimizing the health care resources available to low SES patients and strategies to minimize the risk of severe GVHD in non-Hispanic Black patients may improve long-term outcomes.

Demographic and Socioeconomic Trends of Patients Undergoing Total Knee Arthroplasty From 2013 to 2022—An Analysis From an Urban Orthopaedic Hospital

BackgroundAs worldwide utilization of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) broadens, demographic trends can help make projections to inform access to care. This study aimed to assess the temporal trends in the socioeconomic and medical demographics of patients undergoing TKA. MethodsA retrospective review of 15,848 patients who underwent primary, elective TKA at an urban, New York City-based academic medical center between January 2013 and September 2022 was performed. Trends in patients’ age, body mass index (BMI), socioeconomic status (SES) (based on median income by patients’ ZIP code), race, and Charlson comorbidity index were evaluated using the Mann-Kendall test. ResultsIn the last decade, mean patient age (65 to 68 years, P < .001) and Charlson comorbidity index (1.4 to 2.3, P < .001) increased significantly. The proportion of patients who had a BMI ≥ 30 and < 40 increased (43.8 to 51.2%, P = .002), while the proportion of patients who had a BMI ≥ 40 (13.7 to 12.1%, P = .015) and BMI < 30 (42.5 to 36.8%, P = .020) decreased. The distribution of patients’ race and SES did not change from 2013 to 2022; Black (18.1 to 16.8%, P = .211) and low SES (12.9 to 11.3%, P = .283) patients consistently represented a minority of TKA patients. ConclusionsOver the last decade, the average age and comorbidity burden of TKA patients at our institution have increased. This portends the need for higher levels of preoperative optimization and postoperative management for TKA patients. A decreased prevalence of BMI ≥40 could reflect optimization efforts. However, the consistently low prevalence of Black and low-SES patients suggests that recent payment models did not improve access to care for these populations. Level of EvidenceIV.

Broadening Eligibility Criteria and Diversity among Patients for Cancer Clinical Trials

BackgroundCertain populations have been historically underrepresented in clinical trials. Broadening eligibility criteria is one approach to inclusive clinical research and achieving enrollment goals. How broadened trial eligibility criteria affect the diversity of eligible participants is unknown.MethodsUsing a nationwide electronic health record–derived deidentified database, we identified a retrospective cohort of patients diagnosed with 22 cancer types between April 1, 2013 and December 31, 2022 who received systemic therapy (N=235,234) for cancer. We evaluated strict versus broadened eligibility criteria using performance status and liver, kidney, and hematologic function around first line of therapy. We performed logistic regression to estimate odds ratios for exclusion by strict criteria and their association with measures of patient diversity, including sex, age, race or ethnicity, and area-level socioeconomic status (SES); estimated the impact of broadening criteria on the number and distribution of eligible patients; and performed Cox regression to estimate hazard ratios for real-world overall survival (rwOS) comparing patients meeting strict versus broadened criteria.ResultsWhen applying common strict cutoffs for eligibility criteria to patients with complete data and weighting each cancer type equally, 48% of patients were eligible for clinical trials. Female (odds ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.25 to 1.35), older (age 75+ vs. 18 to 49 years old: odds ratio, 3.04; 95% CI, 2.85 to 3.24), Latinx (odds ratio, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.39 to 1.54), non-Latinx Black (odds ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.16), and lower-SES patients were more likely to be excluded using strict eligibility criteria. Broadening criteria increased the number of eligible patients by 78%, with the strongest impact for older, female, non-Latinx Black, and lower-SES patients. Patients who met only broadened criteria had worse rwOS versus those with strict criteria (hazard ratio, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.27 to 1.34).ConclusionsData-driven evaluation of clinical trial eligibility criteria may optimize the eligibility of certain historically underrepresented groups and promote access to more inclusive trials. (Sponsored by Flatiron Health.)

Including socioeconomic status reduces readmission penalties to safety-net hospitals

ObjectiveMedicare’s Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) financially penalizes “excessive” postoperative readmissions. Concerned with creating a double standard for institutions treating a high percentage of economically vulnerable patients, Medicare elected to exclude socioeconomic status (SES) from its risk-adjustment model. However, recent evidence suggests that safety-net hospitals (SNHs) caring for many low-SES patients are disproportionately penalized under the HRRP. We sought to simulate the impact of including SES-sensitive models on HRRP penalties for hospitals performing lower extremity revascularization (LER). MethodsThis is a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of national data on Medicare patients undergoing open or endovascular LER procedures between 2007 and 2009. We used hierarchical logistic regression to generate hospital risk-standardized 30-day readmission rates under Medicare’s current model (adjusting for age, sex, comorbidities, and procedure type) compared with models that also adjust for SES. We estimated the likelihood of a penalty and penalty size for SNHs compared with non-SNHs under the current Medicare model and these SES-sensitive models. ResultsOur study population comprised 1708 hospitals performing 284,724 LER operations with an overall unadjusted readmission rate of 14.4% (standard deviation: 5.3%). Compared with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services model, adjusting for SES would not change the proportion of SNHs penalized for excess readmissions (55.1% vs 53.4%, P = .101) but would reduce penalty amounts for 38% of SNHs compared with only 17% of non-SNHs, P < .001. ConclusionsFor LER, changing national Medicare policy to including SES in readmission risk-adjustment models would reduce penalty amounts to SNHs, especially for those that are also teaching institutions. Making further strides toward reducing the national disparity between SNHs and non-SHNs on readmissions, performance measures require strategies beyond simply altering the risk-adjustment model to include SES.

Abstract 13289: Medicaid Patients in Cardiac Rehabilitation: Underrepresented, High Risk, High Need

Purpose: Patients with lower-socioeconomic status (SES) have higher rates of cardiovascular (CV) events and therefore, have the most to gain from cardiac rehabilitation (CR). Unfortunately, those with lower-SES are much less likely to engage in CR which has made characterization of this population quite difficult. Our CR program specifically increased recruitment of lower-SES patients, allowing for careful comparison of medical, psychosocial, and behavioral risk factors between lower and higher-SES patients eligible for secondary prevention. Methods: Demographic and clinical characteristics were prospectively gathered on consecutive individuals entering Phase 2 CR from 1/2014-12/2022. Patients were classified as lower-SES if they had Medicaid insurance. Statistical methods included chi-square and non-paired t-tests. A p value of &lt;0.01 was used to determine significance. Results: The entire cohort consisted of 3131 individuals. Compared to higher-SES patients, lower-SES individuals (n=405, 13%) were a decade younger, almost 6 times more likely to be current smokers, nearly 3 times more likely to have elevated depressive symptoms, and had significantly higher body mass index, waist circumference, and hemoglobin A1c, with more abnormal lipid profiles (all p&lt;0.001). Despite being a decade younger, lower-SES patients had lower measures of peak VO 2 and self-reported lower levels of physical function (both p&lt;0.001). Conclusion: Lower-SES patients have a remarkably prominent high-risk CV profile resulting in a substantially higher risk for a recurrent coronary event than higher-SES patients. Accordingly, strong efforts must be placed to engage this high-risk population in CR. It is imperative for CR programs to ensure that they are appropriately equipped to intervene on risk factors such as low fitness, depression, and smoking.

Abstract 13300: Recovery From Acute Cardiac Events in Lower-Socioeconomic Status Patients: Physical and Psychological Outcomes Over Time

Introduction: Participation in cardiac rehabilitation (CR) reduces morbidity, and mortality, while improving quality of life following major cardiovascular events. Patients with lower-socioeconomic status (SES), such as those enrolled in Medicaid, are much less likely to attend and complete CR, despite being at increased risk for recurrent cardiovascular events. Methods: A secondary analysis was performed on a randomized controlled trial in which 130 individuals enrolled in Medicaid, with a CR-qualifying cardiac event, were randomized 1:1 to receive financial incentives for completing CR sessions or to usual care. Participants were assessed on clinical and cognitive outcomes soon after discharge as well as at 4 months, and 1 year following entry. The current analyses focused on how outcomes changed over the three timepoints. Outcomes included changes in psychological measurements (depressive/anxious symptoms, quality of life), body composition (waist circumference, body mass index), and fitness (peak VO2/METS). Mixed model repeated measures analyses of variance were used to test for main effects while controlling for sex, smoking status, age, and qualifying diagnosis. Results: Lower-SES patients entering CR had remarkably low levels of fitness and high rates of psychological issues. Fitness improved between intake and 4-months, and gains were maintained through one year (p&lt;0.001) (Table 1) however gains were less in females and those who completed fewer sessions of CR. Body composition measurements significantly worsened between 4-months and 1-year (p&lt;0.03). Psychological measures did not improve in the year following the event. Conclusion: While fitness improved in lower-SES patients, especially among those who completed more sessions of CR, psychological symptoms were elevated and did not improve. Future research should seek to understand how we can better serve this population, especially in the area of psych symptoms.

Lower-Socioeconomic Status Patients Have Extremely High-Risk Factor Profiles on Entry to Cardiac Rehabilitation.

Patients with lower socioeconomic status (SES) have higher rates of cardiovascular events, yet are less likely to engage in secondary prevention such as cardiac rehabilitation (CR). Given the low number of lower-SES patients entering CR, characterization of this population has been difficult. Our CR program specifically increased recruitment of lower-SES patients, allowing for careful comparison of medical, psychosocial, and behavioral risk factors between lower- and higher-SES patients eligible for secondary prevention. Demographic and clinical characteristics were prospectively gathered on consecutive individuals entering phase 2 CR from January 2014 to December 2022. Patients were classified as lower SES if they had Medicaid insurance. Statistical methods included chi-square and nonpaired t tests. A P value of <.01 was used to determine significance. The entire cohort consisted of 3131 individuals. Compared with higher-SES patients, lower-SES individuals (n = 405; 13%) were a decade younger (57.1 ± 10.4 vs 67.2 ± 11.2 yr), 5.8 times more likely to be current smokers (29 vs 5%), 1.7 times more likely to have elevated depressive symptoms, and significantly higher body mass index, waist circumference, and glycated hemoglobin A 1c , with more abnormal lipid profiles (all P s < .001). Despite being a decade younger, lower-SES patients had lower measures of cardiorespiratory fitness and self-reported physical function (both P s < .001). Lower-SES patients have a remarkably prominent high-risk cardiovascular disease profile, resulting in a substantially higher risk for a recurrent coronary event than higher-SES patients. Accordingly, efforts must be made to engage this high-risk population in CR. It is incumbent on CR programs to ensure that they are appropriately equipped to intervene on modifiable risk factors such as low cardiorespiratory fitness, obesity, depression, and smoking.

Representativeness in cancer treatment trials in community and academic settings.

e18550 Background: Patients with cancer who participate in clinical trials may not be representative of the broader patient population, which can impact the generalizability of results. However, it is unknown whether practice setting influences representativeness of trial participants. Here we evaluated (1) whether demographic characteristics of patients enrolled in cancer treatment trials at academic sites differ from those in the community and (2) the degree to which trial patient characteristics are representative of the overall patient population seen in each practice setting. Methods: This retrospective study used the nationwide Flatiron Health electronic health record-derived de-identified database, originating from ~280 US cancer clinics (~800 sites of care). We included patients with a cancer diagnosis and clinical visits between 11/1/17 - 11/1/22. Clinical study drug administration was used as a proxy for trial participation. We applied multivariate logistic regression to assess the association of age, sex, race/ethnicity, insurance status and neighborhood socioeconomic status [SES] quintile with practice setting among trial participants, and Pearson 𝛘2 test for independence to assess the association between distribution of patient characteristics in trial participants versus trial non-participants. Results: Of 28,235 trial participants, 13,297 (47%) were treated at academic and 14,938 (53%) at community sites. Among patients who participated in clinical trials, the odds of enrollment at a community versus academic site were significantly higher among patients who were older (75+ odds ratio [OR] 1.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.73-2.11), Female (OR 1.22, CI 1.14-1.31), Black (OR 1.32, CI 1.16-1.50), had Medicaid (OR 1.22, CI 1.07-1.39 ) or were uninsured/unknown (OR 2.05, CI 1.82-2.31) and had the lowest quintile SES (OR 1.78, CI 1.58-2.00), and were significantly lower among patients who were Latinx (OR 0.56, CI 0.48-0.65) or higher ECOG Performance Status (2+ OR 0.75, CI 0.65-0.87). Significant differences in each patient characteristic category existed between trial participants and trial non-participants at both academic and community sites (p &lt; 0.001). Trial participants and trial non-participants were more similar (𝛘2 values less discordant) in sex and race/ethnicity at academic sites, and more similar in insurance and SES categories in the community. Conclusions: When compared to academic centers, community sites had proportionately greater enrollment of older, Black, Medicaid/uninsured and low SES patients. Significant differences existed between trial participants and trial non-participants in both settings for each demographic category. These findings highlight how community site involvement may improve trial representativeness, and underscores the need for targeted solutions to optimize trial representativeness in both academic and community practices.

Financial incentives and case management to improve cardiac rehabilitation participation among patients with lower socio-economic status: Rationale and protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BackgroundParticipation in phase 2 cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is associated with significant decreases in morbidity and mortality. Unfortunately, attendance at CR is not optimal and certain populations, such as those with lower-socioeconomic status (SES), are less likely to participate. In order to remedy this disparity we have designed a trial to examine the efficacy of early case management and/or financial incentives for increasing CR participation among lower-SES patients. MethodsWe will employ a randomized controlled trial with a sample goal of 209 patients who will be randomized 2:3:3:3 to either a usual care control, to receive a case manager starting in-hospital, to receive financial incentives for completing CR sessions, or to receive both interventions. ResultsTreatment conditions will be compared on attendance at CR and end-of-intervention (four months) improvements in cardiorespiratory fitness, executive function, and health-related quality of life. The primary outcome measures for this project will be number of CR sessions completed and the percentage who complete ≥30 sessions. Secondary outcomes will include improvements in health outcomes by condition, as well as the cost-effectiveness of the intervention with a focus on potential reductions in emergency department visits and hospitalizations. We hypothesize that either intervention will perform better than the control and that the combination of interventions will perform better than either alone. ConclusionsThis systematic examination of interventions will allow us to test the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of approaches that have the potential to increase CR participation substantially and significantly improve health outcomes among patients with lower-SES.

MP65-01 RISK FACTORS FOR PARASTOMAL HERNIATION: A SURVEILLANCE, EPIDEMIOLOGY AND END RESULTS-MEDICARE DATA ANALYSIS

You have accessJournal of UrologyCME1 Apr 2023MP65-01 RISK FACTORS FOR PARASTOMAL HERNIATION: A SURVEILLANCE, EPIDEMIOLOGY AND END RESULTS-MEDICARE DATA ANALYSIS Diboro Kanabolo, Sarah Holt, Jonathan Wright, and George Schade Diboro KanaboloDiboro Kanabolo More articles by this author , Sarah HoltSarah Holt More articles by this author , Jonathan WrightJonathan Wright More articles by this author , and George SchadeGeorge Schade More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000003323.01AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: A frequent complication of stoma creation is parastomal herniation (PSH), defined as any palpable bulge or radiologic defect containing bowel in the parastomal region. Reported incidence rates are up to 50% for patients in the 24 months following ileal conduit (IC) surgery. To better understand risk factors for PSH in those undergoing cystectomy and ileal conduit (RC/IC) procedure, we examined a contemporary cohort of patients through combined Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare data (SEER-MD). METHODS: Using SEER-MD, patients with PSH after cystectomy and IC were identified. This was performed using CPT codes to identify surgery patients and subsequent diagnostic the new ICD-10 PSH specific code (K43.5) post-surgery, for those with surgery between 2015 and 2019. Risk factors of interest included: race, sex, socioeconomic status, marital status, COPD, smoking, obesity status, neoadjuvant chemotherapy administration, and tumor stage. An adjusted Cox Proportional-Hazards model was utilized for statistical analysis, enabling assessment of time to PSH from receipt of surgery and to account for censored patients. RESULTS: Of 1,838 patients identified as having undergone RC/IC, 132 patients (7 %) developed PSH in the followup period. The median time to PSH was 11.5 months (IQR: 6.5-18.7 months). The greatest risk factor in our cohort of patients for development of PSH was obesity (HR 2.05, 95% CI 1.48-2.98). The lowest socioeconomic quartile was also associated with greater risk of PSH (HR 1.49, 95% CI 1.01-2.22). Sex, COPD diagnosis, gender, race, smoking status, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and tumor stage were not significantly associated with risk of PSH, although the female sex, Black/Hispanic race, and pT4 lesions showed elevated HR estimates. Marital status of “Divorced/Separated/Widowed” was significantly associated with PSH (HR 1.66, 95% CI 1.04-2.66) vs. “Married”, however due to a large portion of “unknown” marital status in our cohort, this finding may not be clinically meaningful. CONCLUSIONS: While the SEER-MD incidence rate is far below 50%, this reflects a mutable coding process subject to variation in capture by provider. With the available cohort, our model demonstrated an increased risk of PSH for obese and low SES patients undergoing RC/IC surgery. Both weight loss prevention strategies and careful symptom monitoring must be pursued in this population. Source of Funding: None © 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 209Issue Supplement 4April 2023Page: e890 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Diboro Kanabolo More articles by this author Sarah Holt More articles by this author Jonathan Wright More articles by this author George Schade More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...

Instrumental, Affective, and Patient-Centered Communication Between Cardiologists and Patients with Low Socioeconomic Status: An Observational Study

ABSTRACT One of the essential elements in managing health is having adequate communication with health care providers. Unfortunately, patients with a low socioeconomic status (SES) often experience less adequate communication with their doctor. In the current study, we explore and compare the communication of both doctors and patients from lower and higher sociodemographic backgrounds on three factors: instrumental, affective, and patient-centered communication. In total, 45 cardiology consultations were observed, transcribed, and coded (16 low-SES, 16 middle-SES, 13 high-SES). Our analyses showed that, compared to higher-SES patients, low-SES patients voiced less of their concerns, answered questions of the doctor more often with one word, and expressed less utterances overall. Naturally, we found that doctors expressed more utterances overall toward low-SES patients. For doctors, no differences regarding instrumental, affective, or patient-centered communication were found. These findings suggest that low-SES patients are more passive communicators and communication differences based on SES exist predominantly for patients’ communication. The revealed communication differences may lead to a less adequate interaction and potentially worse patient outcomes, further increasing the socioeconomic health gap. Hence, doctors should become even more aware of socioeconomic patient communication differences so that they can appropriately encourage low-SES patients to become more active communicators.

1014-P: Characteristics Associated with Diabetes Device Use Before and During the Pandemic in Youth with T1D

Introduction: The impact of the Covid-pandemic on diabetes device uptake and use in youth with T1D is unclear. We assessed demographic, diabetes, and SES characteristics associated with diabetes technology (pump, CGM) use in youth with T1D, aged ≤18 years, pre- and during the pandemic. Methods: EHR provided ∼18 months of data pre- and during the pandemic. Pump and CGM use were defined as device use at ≥50% of visits. Geocoding provided census tract-specific SES measures from the 20American Community Survey. Logistic regression models analyzed the probability of device use vs. non-use in the pre- and pandemic periods by geocoded SES status, adjusted for age, gender, baseline A1c, and T1D duration. Results: Pre-pandemic sample had 734 youth (male 49%, aged 13.8±3.3 years, T1D duration 7.3±3.4 years) ; pandemic sample had 800 youth (male 51%, aged 13.4±3.7 years, T1D duration 6.6±3.9 years) ; 689 were in both periods. Pre- and during pandemic, respectively, there were 25% and 22% device non-users; 19% and 21% pump only; 13% and 16% CGM only; 43% and 41% both. Pre-pandemic baseline A1c differed by the 4 device use groups: non-users 9.1±1.7%; pump 8.5±1.2%; CGM 8.2±1.2%; both 8.1±1.0%; p&amp;lt;.05.In both periods, the odds of device non-users starting a device were reduced in those from low-income tracts (≤$40,000) (pre: OR 0.60, 95%CI 0.40-0.91; during: OR 0.59, 95%CI 0.39-0.88; respectively, both p=.01) and low education tracts (≥30% high school or less) (pre: OR 0.57, 95%CI 0.39-0.85; during: OR 0.65, 95%CI 0.44-0.97; both p≤.03) . While the odds of CGM uptake were significantly reduced by ∼40% in presence of unfavorable census SES factors (p≤.01) , the odds of pump start were not (p≥.05) . Odds of uptake of both devices were significantly reduced by ∼45% in presence of unfavorable census SES factors (p≤.02) in both periods. Conclusion: During the pandemic, there remained decreased uptake and less continued use of diabetes device in lower SES patients. Further work is needed to decrease the inequality gap. Disclosure C.Chen: None. A.Adam: None. S.Ojukwu: None. T.Kaushal: None. L.J.Tinsley: None. L.K.Volkening: None. L.M.Laffel: Advisory Panel; Medtronic, Roche Diabetes Care, Consultant; Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Dexcom, Inc., Dompé, Insulet Corporation, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Lilly Diabetes, Novo Nordisk, Provention Bio, Inc. Funding National Institutes of Health (P30DK036836,T32DK007260)

Surgical wait times and socioeconomic status in a public healthcare system: a retrospective analysis

BackgroundOne aim of publicly-funded health care systems is to provide equitable access to care irrespective of ability to pay. At the same time, differences in socioeconomic status (SES) are associated with health outcomes and access to care, including waiting times for surgery. In public systems where both high- and low-SES patients use the same resources, low-SES patients may be adversely impacted in surgical waiting times. The purpose of this study was to determine whether a publicly-funded health system can provide equitable access to surgical care across socioeconomic status.MethodsPatient-level records were obtained from a comprehensive provincially-administered surgical wait time database, encompassing years 2006–2015 and 98% of Ontario hospitals. Patient SES was determined by linking postal code with the Material and Social Deprivation Index. Surgical waiting times (time in days between decision to treat and surgery) accounted for patient-initiated delays in treatment, and regression analysis considered age, SES, rurality, sex, priority level for surgical urgency (assigned by surgeons), surgical subspecialty, number of visits, and procedure year.ResultsFor the 4,253,305 surgical episodes, the mean wait time was 62.3 (SD 75.4) days. Repeated measures least squares regression analysis showed the least deprived SES quintile waited 3 days longer than the most deprived quintile. Wait times dropped in the initial study period but then increased. The proportion of procedures exceeding wait time access targets remained low at 11–13%.ConclusionsThe least deprived SES quintile waited the longest, although the absolute difference was small. This study demonstrates that publicly-funded healthcare systems can provide equitable access to surgical care across SES.

Acceptability of Intrauterine Contraceptive Device Insertion in immediate Postpartum Period

Background: Mostly, females seek birth space after a delivery. But usually are unaware about contraceptive method and their usage, especially during postpartum period. Controversial results have been noticed from literature regarding the acceptability of PPIUCD among females of reproductive age groups. So we conducted this study to find the acceptability in local population. Aim: To determine the frequency of acceptability of immediate post-partum intra-uterine contraceptive device insertion in females presenting for delivery. Methods: This cross sectional study was conducted in Gynae Unit-II, Shalamar Hospital, Lahore for a period of six months after approval of synopsis i.e. from 4th October 2016 to 4th April, 2017. 90 patients enrolled in this study. Informed consent was taken from all the patients. After delivery, IUCD implanted after taking approval from female and her husband and acceptability noted. All the collected data was entered and analyzed on SPSS version 20. Results: The mean age of the patients was 29.52±7.38 years. The low SES patients were 41(45.6%), middle SES patients were 40(44.4%) and high SES patients were 9(10%). In this study 54(60%) patients accepted the use of IUCD. Conclusion: In our study, the acceptability of immediate PPIUCD insertion in females presenting for delivery was 60%. Keywords: Acceptability, Post-partum, Intra-uterine Contraceptive Device, Delivery

Socioeconomic Status and Prognosis of Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Managed by the Emergency-Intervention "Codi IAM" Network.

BackgroundDespite the spread of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) emergency intervention networks, inequalities in healthcare access still have a negative impact on cardiovascular prognosis. The Family Income Ratio of Barcelona (FIRB) is a socioeconomic status (SES) indicator that is annually calculated. Our aim was to evaluate whether SES had an effect on mortality and complications in patients managed by the “Codi IAM” network in Barcelona.MethodsThis is a cohort study with 3,322 consecutive patients with STEMI treated in Barcelona from 2010 to 2016. Collected data include treatment delays, clinical and risk factor characteristics, and SES. The patients were assigned to three SES groups according to FIRB score. A logistic regression analysis was conducted to estimate the adjusted effect of SES on 30-day mortality, 30-day composite cardiovascular end point, and 1-year mortality.ResultsThe mean age of the patients was 65 ± 13% years, 25% were women, and 21% had diabetes mellitus. Patients with low SES were younger, more often hypertensive, diabetic, dyslipidemic (p < 0.003), had longer reperfusion delays (p < 0.03) compared to participants with higher SES. Low SES was not independently associated with 30-day mortality (OR: 0.95;9 5% CI: 0.7–1.3), 30-day cardiovascular composite end point (OR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.84–1.26), or 1-year all-cause mortality (HR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.76–1.56).ConclusionAlthough the low-SES patients with STEMI in Barcelona city were younger, had worse clinical profiles, and had longer revascularization delays, their 30-day and 1-year outcomes were comparable to those of the higher-SES patients.

Dissemination of validated health literacy videos: A tailored approach.

BackgroundPreviously, we showed that chemotherapy terminology is difficult for patients to understand. Therefore, we developed short videos explaining key terminology and though proven effective, they will only be helpful if appropriately disseminated. Therefore, we aimed to determine the best dissemination method at three different healthcare settings.MethodsWith consent, we interviewed healthcare workers from (1) an academic cancer center, Winship Cancer Institute (Winship) serving higher SES patients, (2) an inner‐city, safety‐net hospital Grady Memorial (GMH), (3) clinics serving rural Georgia, from the Winship Community Network (Network). All interviews were transcribed and analyzed using a semantic content analysis method. Suggested dissemination plans were then implemented.ResultsTwenty‐two Winship, 11 GMH, and 4 Network healthcare workers were interviewed. Seventy‐two percent (n = 8) of the GMH and 100% (n = 4) of Network healthcare workers felt that the best place for patients to view the videos was in the clinic, compared to 27% (n = 6) of the Winship clinicians. 68% (n = 15) of the Winship clinicians stated an app would be the most useful format, compared to 27% (n = 3) at GMH, and 0% at Network sites. Video viewing increased after dissemination plans were implemented.CONCLUSIONEducational materials explaining oncology treatment terminology enhance patient understanding, yet without proper dissemination, these tools may never reach the intended patient population. Our study shows that dissemination plans need to be tailored to each individual patient population, with rural and lower SES patients needing to view the videos during clinic visits, and patients of more means viewing them using technology at home.

Associations between Socioeconomic Status and Bispecific LV20.19 CAR T-Cell Therapy Outcomes

BackgroundSocioeconomic Status (SES) is recognized as a major contributor to health disparities in overall disease rate, morbidity, mortality, and quality of life (QOL). Specifically, low SES, independent of race, has a negative impact on solid and haematological cancer outcomes. Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell cancer therapy is an increasingly utilized novel treatment option for the treatment of lymphoma; however its use is associated with cytokine release syndrome (CRS), neurotoxicity (NTX), and QOL impairments. Though the precise mechanism for these toxicities is unknown, adverse effects of CAR T-cell therapy are associated with neuroinflammatory markers that are upregulated in low SES populations. In this study, we hypothesized that patient response to a novel anti-CD20 and anti-CD19 (LV20.19) CAR T-cell treatment is affected by patient SES. Our second goal was to explore several possible biological mechanisms of the effects of SES on CAR T-cell therapy outcomes, including cytokines and kynurenine metabolites.MethodsThe current study population (N=15) is derived from a parent study evaluating patients treated with LV20.19 CAR T-cells on a Phase I/Ib clinical trial (NCT03019055). Patients provided blood samples and patient reported outcome (PRO) data 15 days before therapy (baseline), Day 14 post therapy (D14), D28, and D90. Cytokines were sent to Eve Technologies and quantified using an ELISA. Our analysis focused on 10 cytokines associated with CAR T-cell therapy neurotoxicity. Tryptophan (TRP) and kynurenine metabolites were quantified from serum samples using stable isotope-dilution liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry of the daughter ions (LC-MS-MS). Neurotoxicity was graded using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v5 and CRS was graded using Lee et al. (Blood; 2019) PROs included depression and anxiety (Inventory of Depression and Anxiety), sleep (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index; PSQI), fatigue (Fatigue Symptom Inventory; FSI), and pain (Brief Pain Inventory; BPI) intensity (BPII) and interference (BPIF). SES was assessed by household annual income either above or below the Wisconsin median annual income in 2021 of $54,660 (high SES as >$55,000, n=7; low SES as $10,001-55,000, n=8). SES groups were compared against therapy outcomes using Wilcox Ranked Sum test, Student's t-test, and mixed effects linear models with a random subject intercept and estimated marginal means, respectively.ResultsThere was no significant difference between SES groups based on age, education, or clinical response to therapy by D28 (Table 1). Baseline LDH was 3.4-fold higher in low compared to high SES patients (p=0.04). Most peak cytokine concentrations were higher in low SES patients with significant elevations (p<0.05) in G-CSF, I-309, IL-8, IP-10, MCP-2, and TNFa (9-fold, 3-fold, 3-fold, 2-fold, 2-fold, and 4-fold, respectively; Figure 1). Low SES patients also had significantly elevated neurotoxic pathway kyunerine metabolites (p<0.05; Figure 2) 3-hydroxyanthranilate (3-HAA) at D28 (8-fold) and quinolinic acid (QA) at baseline (5-fold), D14 (8-fold), and D28 (6-fold). Though incidences of CRS were only qualitatively higher in low SES patients (p=0.07), low SES patients experienced CRS significantly earlier (p=0.009; Table 2). Not enough patients experienced NTX for sufficient analysis. Patients with low SES indicated more pain intensity on D90 (BPII; p=0.021) and baseline pain interference (BPIF; p=0.08; Figure 3). Low SES patient reported worse sleep quality at D90 than high SES patients (p<0.05), and low SES average was higher than the PSQI threshold for “poor sleep” (5) at baseline, D28, and D90.ConclusionOur data show preliminary evidence that SES is associated with biological and clinical outcomes among patients receiving CAR T-cell therapy. In particular, we observed significantly higher concentrations of proinflammatory cytokine and neurotoxic kynurenine metabolites in low SES patients, as well as higher baseline LDH associated with higher tumor burden. Earlier CRS onset and increased pain were also seen in low SES patients, with qualitatively higher incidences of CRS, neurotoxicity, and poor sleep. Future work will focus on acquiring a larger sample to further delineate the impact of SES on cancer outcome disparities among CAR T-cell recipients, including but not limited to PROs, neurotoxicity, and survival. [Display omitted] DisclosuresShah: Umoja: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; Miltenyi Biotec: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Legend: Consultancy; Lily: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Hillard: Formulate Bioscience: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company; Phytecs, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Identifying barriers to equitable biomarker testing in underserved patients with NSCLC: A mixed-methods study to inform quality improvement opportunities.

123 Background: Despite recent advances in cancer precision medicine, patients from underserved communities do not have equal access to biomarker testing and targeted therapies. This study used a mixed-methods approach to identify barriers to equitable precision medicine access among underserved patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods: Paired national surveys (one clinician-facing and one patient-facing) were developed respectively by the Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) and LUNGevity Foundation. Administered online in spring/summer 2020, the surveys were designed to identify key attitudes/barriers related to biomarker testing, resource needs, and current practice patterns for pertinent stakeholders. Survey data was triangulated with data from focus groups (2 clinician and 6 patient) conducted in fall 2020. The study was approved by Advarra IRB. Results: A total of 99 clinicians responded, with 67% (66/99) representing oncologists from community cancer programs. 248 patients responded to the LUNGevity survey, with 161 coming from the general population and 87 from the LUNGevity network (patients with relatively high income and education levels). Most clinicians surveyed indicated they were “very” (34%) or “extremely” likely (44%) to discuss biomarker testing with NSCLC patients. Academic clinicians, however, were more likely than community-based clinicians to order testing at the time of initial biopsy (76% vs 52%, P =.02). Academic clinicians were also more likely to involve the patient’s family in biomarker testing discussions (85% vs 59%, P =.009). Patient survey results identified that medical oncologists are the primary source of biomarker testing information; 64% of LUNGevity-connected and 37% of underserved patients. Eighty-five percent of LUNGevity-connected patients receive biomarker testing versus 52% for general patients (p &lt; 0.05). Notably, more than a quarter (27%) of underserved patients who have undergone biomarker testing do not know their results. Clinician focus group participants corroborated survey findings that most clinicians receive testing results in 7-14 days, but for 23% of community and 6% of academic clinicians the process can take over 2 weeks. They identified disparities in offering biomarker testing and results to patients with known or presumed low socioeconomic status (SES) and/or health literacy. This was supported by patient survey data, which showed biomarker testing was proactively offered to only 40% of low-SES patients. Conclusions: This study identifies key areas of ongoing need related to equitable biomarker testing. Quality-improvement opportunities exist to address both clinician and patient barriers to guideline-concordant biomarker testing for underserved patients with NSCLC.

Institutions Treating Breast Cancer Patients of a Low Socioeconomic Status Achieve Multidisciplinary Quality Standards at Lower Rates.

The National Accreditation Program of Breast Centers (NAPBC) certifies institutions that provide quality breast care. Whereas low socioeconomic status (SES) has a negative impact on patient outcomes, it is unknown whether an institution's patient SES mix is associated with meeting NAPBC standards. All institutions submitting at least 100 breast cancer patients to the National Cancer Database (2006-2017) were ranked based on the patients' insurance status, income, and education. The 10% treating the largest proportion of low-SES patients were termed low-SES institutions (LSES). Patient cohorts were created based on the 2018 NAPBC standards. Uni- and multivariate comparisons of patient, tumor, and treatment factors were made to calculate adjusted odds of meeting each standard between low- and non-low-SES institutions. The analysis included 1319 institutions. Both the LSES and non-LSES reached the benchmark rate of 50% lumpectomies (61.2 vs 62.9%; p < 0.001), but the unadjusted and adjusted rates of lumpectomy were lower in LSES. The rate for sentinel lymphadenectomy was lower for LSES (49.2 vs 53.7%; p < 0.001). Similarly, the unadjusted and adjusted rates of adjuvant chemotherapy and endocrine therapy were lower at LSES. Although the unadjusted rate of adjuvant radiation was higher at LSES, adjusted odds demonstrated that patients treated at LSES were less likely to undergo adjuvant radiation when appropriate. Small but significant differences in achieving multidisciplinary standards for quality breast cancer care exist between LSES and non-LSES and may exacerbate disparities already faced by patients of low SES.