non-Hispanic Black Families Research Articles

The Injury Prevention Program to Reduce Early Childhood Injuries: A Cluster Randomized Trial.

The American Academy of Pediatrics designed The Injury Prevention Program (TIPP) in 1983 to help pediatricians prevent unintentional injuries, but TIPP's effectiveness has never been formally evaluated. We sought to evaluate the impact of TIPP on reported injuries in the first 2 years of life. We conducted a stratified, cluster-randomized trial at 4 academic medical centers: 2centers trained their pediatric residents and implemented TIPP screening and counseling materials at all well-child checks (WCCs) for ages 2 to 24 months, and 2 centers implemented obesity prevention. At each WCC, parents reported the number of child injuries since the previous WCC. Proportional odds logistic regression analyses with generalized estimating equation examined the extent to which the number of injuries reported were reduced at TIPP intervention sites compared with control sites, adjusting for baseline child, parent, and household factors. A total of 781 parent-infant dyads (349 TIPP; 432 control) were enrolled and had sufficient data to qualify for analyses: 51% Hispanic, 28% non-Hispanic Black, and 87% insured by Medicaid. Those at TIPP sites had significant reduction in the adjusted odds of reported injuries compared with non-TIPP sites throughout the follow-up (P = .005), with adjusted odds ratios (95% CI) of 0.77 (0.66-0.91), 0.60 (0.44-0.82), 0.32 (0.16-0.62), 0.26 (0.12-0.53), and 0.27 (0.14-0.52) at 4, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months, respectively. In this cluster-randomized trial with predominantly low-income, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic Black families, TIPP resulted in a significant reduction in parent-reported injuries. Our study provides evidence for implementing the American Academy of Pediatrics' TIPP in routine well-child care.

Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance Premium Cost Growth and Its Association With Earnings Inequality Among US Families

Costs of employer-sponsored health care benefits have increased faster than workers' wages for several decades, with important implications for disparities in earnings and wage stagnation. To quantify how growth in employer-sponsored health insurance (ESI) premiums may have been associated with reduced annual wages, disparities in earnings by race and ethnicity and wage level, and wage stagnation among US families with ESI. In this economic evaluation, serial cross-sectional analyses were performed of US families receiving ESI from 1988 to 2019 based on data from the Consumer Expenditure Survey, Kaiser Employer Health Benefits Survey, US Census Bureau's Current Population Survey, and federal payroll taxation rates. Statistical analysis was conducted from February 2022 to July 2023. Percentage of annual compensation associated with health care premiums (after accounting for tax deductibility) and lost wages associated with growth in cost of premiums from 1989 to 2019 based on 1988 compensation. To assess disparities, analyses were stratified by race and ethnicity and wage level. In 1988, 44.7 million individuals (head of household: mean [SD] age, 43.3 [13.1] years; 30.1% were female; and 2.4% identified as Asian, 6.2% as Hispanic, 8.6% as non-Hispanic Black, and 82.8% as non-Hispanic White) were covered by ESI family plans; this number remained similar in 2019 at 44.8 million individuals (head of household: mean [SD] age, 47.1 [12.9] years; 41.3% were female; and 1.3% identified as Asian, 9.9% as Hispanic, 9.9% as non-Hispanic Black, and 78.9% as non-Hispanic White). In 1988, the mean (SD) household size was 3.3 (1.3) people, and in 2019, it was 3.4 (1.3) people. If ESI costs had remained at the same proportion of the 1988 average compensation package, then in 2019, the median US family with ESI could have earned $8774 (95% CI, $8354-$9195) more in annual wages. During all 32 years, health care premiums as a percentage of compensation were greater for non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic families than for non-Hispanic White families. By 2019, 13.8% (95% CI, 13.5%-14.1%) of compensation among non-Hispanic White families with ESI went to premium costs compared with 19.2% (95% CI, 18.8%-19.7%) among non-Hispanic Black families and 19.8% (19.3%-20.3%) among Hispanic families with ESI. In 2019, health care premiums as a percentage of compensation at the 95th percentile of earnings for families with ESI were 3.9% (95% CI, 3.8%-4.0%) compared with 28.5% (95% CI, 27.8%-29.2%) at the 20th percentile of earnings. From 1988 to 2019, the mean cumulative lost earnings associated with growth in health care premiums for the median US family with ESI was $125 340 (95% CI, $120 155-$130 525) in 2019 dollars, 4.7% of earnings over the 32-year period. This economic evaluation of US families receiving ESI suggests that 3 decades of increasing health care premiums were likely associated with reduced annual earnings and increased earnings inequality by race and ethnicity and wage level and were meaningfully associated with wage stagnation.

Association of Severe COVID-19 and Persistent COVID-19 Symptoms With Economic Hardship Among US Families

Little is known about the association of severe COVID-19 and post-COVID-19 conditions with household finances. To examine associations between COVID-19 outcomes, pandemic-related economic hardship, and prepandemic socioeconomic status among families in the US. This cohort study used data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), a nationally representative, longitudinal study. Data included 6932 families active in the PSID in both 2019 and 2021. Ordinal exposure categories were defined based on whether the reference person or spouse or partner reported a positive COVID-19 diagnosis and (1) persistent COVID-19 symptoms, (2) previous severe COVID-19, or (3) previous moderate, mild, or asymptomatic COVID-19. Families with no history of COVID-19 served as the reference group. Outcomes included whether a resident family member was laid off or furloughed, lost earnings, or had any financial difficulties due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In this cohort study of 6932 families (772 Hispanic families [weighted, 13.5%; 95% CI, 12.4%-14.6%], 2725 non-Hispanic Black families [weighted, 13.1%; 95% CI, 12.3%-14.1%], and 3242 non-Hispanic White families [weighted, 66.8%; 95% CI, 65.2%-68.3%]), close to 1 in 4 (2222 [weighted, 27.0%; 95% CI, 25.6%-28.6%]) reported income below 200% of the US Census Bureau poverty threshold. In survey-weighted regression models adjusted for prepandemic sociodemographic characteristics and experiences of economic hardship, the odds of reporting pandemic-related economic hardship were 2.0 to 3.7 times higher among families headed by an adult with persistent COVID-19 symptoms (laid off or furloughed: adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.98 [95% CI, 1.37-2.85]; lost earnings: AOR, 2.86 [95% CI, 2.06-3.97]; financial difficulties: AOR, 3.72 [95% CI, 2.62-5.27]) and 1.7 to 2.0 times higher among families headed by an adult with previous severe COVID-19 (laid off or furloughed: AOR, 1.69 [95% CI, 1.13-2.53]; lost earnings: AOR, 1.99 [95% CI, 1.37-2.90]; financial difficulties: AOR, 1.87 [95% CI, 1.25-2.80]) compared with families with no history of COVID-19. Families headed by an adult with persistent COVID-19 symptoms had increased odds of reporting financial difficulties due to the pandemic regardless of prepandemic socioeconomic status (families with lower income: AOR, 3.71 [95% CI, 1.94-7.10]; families with higher income: AOR, 3.74 [95% CI, 2.48-5.63]). Previous severe COVID-19 was significantly associated with financial difficulties among families with lower income (AOR, 2.59 [95% CI, 1.26-5.31]) but was not significantly associated with financial difficulties among those with high income (OR, 1.56 [95% CI, 0.95-2.56]). This cohort study suggests that persistent COVID-19 symptoms and, to a lesser extent, previous severe COVID-19 were associated with increased odds of pandemic-related economic hardship in a cohort of US families. The economic consequences of COVID-19 varied according to socioeconomic status; families with lower income before the pandemic were more vulnerable to employment disruptions and earnings losses associated with an adult family member's COVID-19 illness.

The Psychosocial Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Families of Youth of Color: A Prospective Cohort Study.

Prospectively examine racial and ethnic disparities in exposure to COVID-19-related stressors and their impact on families. A racially, ethnically, and socioeconomically diverse cohort of caregivers of youth (n = 1,581) representative of the population served by a pediatric healthcare system completed the COVID-19 Exposure and Family Impact Scales in Oct/Nov 2020 and March/April 2021. Linear mixed-effects models were used to examine exposure to COVID-19-related events (Exposure), impact of the pandemic on family functioning and well-being (Impact), and child and parent distress (Distress) across time and as a function of race and ethnicity, adjusting for other sociodemographic variables. Exposure and Distress increased over time for all participants. After adjusting for sociodemographic factors, caregivers of Black and Hispanic youth reported greater Exposure than caregivers of White youth and caregivers of Black youth had a greater increase in Exposure over time than caregivers of White youth. Caregivers of White youth reported greater Impact than caregivers of Black and Other race youth. Exposure to and impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on family psychosocial functioning varied by race and ethnicity. Although exposure to COVID-19-related events was greater among Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black families, those of marginalized races reported less family impact than non-Hispanic White families, suggesting resiliency to the pandemic. Research should examine such responses to public health crises in communities of color, with a focus on understanding protective factors. These findings suggest the importance of culturally tailored interventions and policies that support universal psychosocial screenings during times of public health crises.

OP012: Perceptions of breast and ovarian cancer risk and genetic testing among Non-Hispanic Black women

Non-Hispanic Black (NHB) women experience health disparities from familial and hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) compared to other racial and ethnic groups, including 40% higher mortality from breast cancer compared to non-Hispanic White women. One potential factor in these disparities includes lower uptake of HBOC genetic testing. This study explores potential factors for the lower use of HBOC genetic testing in NHB women and their families. Understanding these factors is critical to improving uptake of HBOC testing in the NHB community and improving HBOC racial and ethnic health disparities. A national sample of NHB women with personal or family history of HBOC were recruited through patient support organizations, historically Black colleges and university sororities, professional organizations for women of African descent, and snowball sampling. Participants were interviewed using an interview guide developed by content experts and a community advisory board. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Interview transcripts were qualitatively analyzed using NVivo12 according to the principles of grounded theory. Sixty-one NHB women with personal (n=37, breast; n=6, ovarian) or family history (n=14, breast; n=2, ovarian; n=2 breast/ovarian) of HBOC participated in a qualitative interview. Participants reported on their own awareness of their family history of HBOC prior to their own diagnosis and how this informed their assessment of their pre-diagnostic risk of HBOC. The impact of family culture and cohesion, including perceptions of a familial ‘culture of silence’ around the sharing of personal or family medical history were also identified as potential barriers to awareness of HBOC risk. Thirty participants with a personal history and seven participants with family history received HBOC genetic testing upon recommendation of their provider or following their own request. Those that declined HBOC genetic testing described misperceptions of HBOC inheritance or expressed a belief that such testing would not be personally beneficial. Participants were also asked to describe family members’ interest in cascade testing and their reasons for accepting or declining HBOC genetic testing. Many participants felt that their daughters would be interested in HBOC genetic testing, but that siblings and other extended family members would decline out of belief that the results would have limited personal utility to themselves and/or their offspring or that a potential positive result would result in distress and life-long worry. Family members’ education status and views on healthcare were also thought to be important factors in their decision. This study is the largest qualitative study of its kind in NHB women with a personal or family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer. These findings suggests that there are significant barriers to HBOC genetic testing in the NHB community, including cultural factors influencing risk perception and the uptake of cascade testing. Culturally sensitive community outreach on the disparate impact of breast and ovarian cancer and how genetic testing may improve NHB cancer outcomes may improve uptake of HBOC genetic testing among at-risk NHB families.

Family's Subjective Economic Status and Children's Matrix Reasoning: Blacks' Diminished Returns.

Due to a pattern known as Marginalization-related Diminished Returns (MDRs), historically oppressed non-Hispanic Black Americans show weaker effects of economic status on health and development, when compared to socially privileged non-Hispanic White Americans. Such MDRs are also documented for the effects of economic status on the school performance of non-Hispanic Black children. However, the existing knowledge is minimal on similar diminished returns on children's intelligence. To compare racial and ethnic groups for the effect of subjective economic status on children's cognitive performance, we compared non-Hispanic White and non-Hispanic Black children for the effects of subjective economic status on children's matrix reasoning. This cross-sectional study included 7898 children from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study. The predictor variable was subjective economic status, which was treated as a continuous measure. The primary outcome was children's matrix reasoning, a domain of cognitive performance, measured by the Wechsler Intelligence Scales for Children-IV (WISC-V) matrix reasoning total score. Overall, high subjective economic status was associated with higher matrix reasoning score. Race showed a statistically significant interaction with subjective economic status on children's matrix reasoning score. This interaction suggested that high subjective economic status has a smaller boosting effect on increasing matrix reasoning score for non-Hispanic Black children relative to non-Hispanic White children. The degree by which subjective economic status correlates with matrix reasoning score, an important domain of cognitive performance, depends on race and racialization. Non-Hispanic Black children may show weaker gains in matrix reasoning from their subjective economic status than their non-Hispanic White counterparts. To minimize the racial gap in cognitive performance, we need to address diminished returns that occur as a result of the racialization of racial and ethnic minority children. Not only should we equalize economic status, but also increase the marginal returns of economic status for racial minorities, particularly non-Hispanic Black families. Such efforts require public policies that go beyond access and also consider how we can empower non-Hispanic Black communities and families so they can more effectively leverage and utilize their economic resources to secure measurable and tangible outcomes. Structural and societal barriers such as residential and school segregation may hinder non-Hispanic Black children from receiving the full effects of their family-level economic status on a variety of outcomes, including their cognitive performance.

When Pandemics Collide: The Impact of COVID-19 on Childhood Obesity

• Children with obesity face increased biopsychosocial risks during COVID-19. • Stress exacerbates inflammation and immune response in obesity and COVID-19. • The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly interrupted children's daily routines. • The health effects of the obesogenic environment are exacerbated by COVID-19. • Access to timely, comprehensive healthcare is critical during COVID-19.

Home-based intervention for non-Hispanic black families finds no significant difference in infant size or growth: results from the Mothers & Others randomized controlled trial

BackgroundNon-Hispanic black (NHB) infants are twice as likely as non-Hispanic white infants to experience rapid weight gain in the first 6 months, yet few trials have targeted this population. The current study tests the efficacy of “Mothers & Others,” a home-based intervention for NHB women and their study partners versus an attention-control, on infant size and growth between birth and 15 months.MethodsMothers & Others was a two-group randomized controlled trial conducted between November 2013 and December 2017 with enrollment at 28-weeks pregnancy and follow-up at 3-, 6-, 9-, 12-, and 15-months postpartum. Eligible women self-identified as NHB, English-speaking, and 18–39 years. The obesity prevention group (OPG) received anticipatory guidance (AG) on responsive feeding and care practices and identified a study partner, who was encouraged to attend home visits. The injury prevention group (IPG) received AG on child safety and IPG partners only completed study assessments. The primary delivery channel for both groups was six home visits by a peer educator (PE). The planned primary outcome was mean weight-for-length z-score. Given significant differences between groups in length-for-age z-scores, infant weight-for-age z-score (WAZ) was used in the current study. A linear mixed model, using an Intent-To-Treat (ITT) data set, tested differences in WAZ trajectories between the two treatment groups. A non-ITT mixed model tested for differences by dose received.ResultsApproximately 1575 women were screened for eligibility and 430 were enrolled. Women were 25.7 ± 5.3 years, mostly single (72.3%), and receiving Medicaid (74.4%). OPG infants demonstrated lower WAZ than IPG infants at all time points, but differences were not statistically significant (WAZdiff = − 0.07, 95% CI − 0.40 to 0.25, p = 0.659). In non-ITT models, infants in the upper end of the WAZ distribution at birth demonstrated incremental reductions in WAZ for each home visit completed, but the overall test of the interaction was not significant (F2,170 = 1.41, p = 0.25).ConclusionsDespite rich preliminary data and a strong conceptual model, Mothers & Others did not produce significant differences in infant growth. Results suggest a positive impact of peer support in both groups.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01938118, 09/10/2013.

Home-based Intervention Among Non-Hispanic Black Families Finds No Significant Difference in Growth at 15 Months: Results from the ‘Mothers & Others’ Randomized Trial (P04-187-19)

ObjectivesMothers and Others (M&O) was an efficacy trial of a home-based intervention designed to prevent obesity in the first year of life. The primary outcome was infant growth, as assessed by differences in weight-for-age z-scores (WAZ) between the obesity prevention group and an attention-control group on infant safety. MethodsThe study design was a two-group randomized control trial among 428 non-Hispanic black (NHB) women recruited at 28 weeks’ pregnancy. The primary delivery channel for both groups was 6 home visits by a peer educator (PE). Mothers in the intervention group received anticipatory guidance (AG) on infant feeding and care behaviors related to obesity prevention. Mothers in the attention-control group received AG on child safety. Mothers in both groups identified a study partner, with partners in the control group only completing study assessments. Infant weight was assessed at birth by maternal self-report and at 3, 6, 9, 12 and 15 months of age by direct measurement. Infant WAZ scores were created using the World Health Organization 2006 international growth standards. The primary efficacy analysis was a linear mixed model (LMM) on an intention-to-treat (ITT) dataset with WAZ score at birth, 3, 6, 9, 12 and 15 months as the dependent variable and treatment group, age and their interaction term as the independent variables. ResultsEnrolled women were 25.76 ± 5.3 years at baseline and the majority were single (72.3%), receiving Medicaid (74.4%), and expecting their first child (56.1%). Baseline characteristics and visit completion rates did not differ by treatment group. At all time points, infants in the intervention group were smaller than those in the control group (e.g., mean WAZ at 15 months was 0.39 ± 1.04 among intervention infants and 0.53 ± 1.07 among control infants), but these differences were not significant. Results of the primary efficacy model yielded no difference in WAZ between infants in the two groups (beta for intervention = −.07, P = 0.659). ConclusionsM&O was designed to fill several gaps in early life obesity prevention trials at the time of its inception, including a focus on infant temperament and inclusion of support partners. Despite rich preliminary data and a strong conceptual model, the intervention did not produce a significant difference in infant growth. Funding SourcesNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.

Effects of maternal and provider characteristics on up-to-date immunization status of children aged 19 to 35 months.

We examined the effects of maternal and provider characteristics on the up-to-date immunization status of children. We used data from the 2003 National Immunization Survey to determine variations in children's up-to-date status in the 4:3:1:3 immunization series. Low maternal educational levels and low socioeconomic status were associated with high 4:3:1:3 series completion rates. Also, completion rates were high in Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black families with low income-to-poverty ratios. We found that children of less educated mothers and children in Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black families with low income-to-poverty ratios were more likely to have completed the 4:3:1:3 series. Although the reasons for these results need further exploration in other data sets, possible factors are Hispanics' positive cultural attitudes regarding the needs and importance of young children and provision of information on immunizations to low-income minority mothers who access government-subsidized health care programs.