Search

Pronounced disparities exist in detecting and treating breast cancer in women with disabilities, leading to cancer detection at advanced stages. This paper provides an overview of disparities for women with disabilities related to breast cancer screening and care, primarily focusing on clinically significant mobility disabilities. Current care gaps include screening barriers related to accessibility and inequitable treatment options, with race and ethnicity, socioeconomic status, geographic location, and disability severity factors mediating the disparities for this population. The reasons for these disparities are myriad and stem from both system-level deficiencies and individual-level clinician bias. Although structural changes are warranted, individual healthcare professionals must also be incorporated into the requisite change. Intersectionality is critical to disparities and inequities and should be central to any discussion of strategies for improving care for people with disabilities, many of whom have intersectional identities. Efforts to reduce screening rate disparities for breast cancer in women with mobility-related disabilities should start with improving accessibility through removing structural barriers, establishing comprehensive accessibility standards, and addressing healthcare professional bias. Future interventional studies are needed to implement and assess the value of programs to improve breast cancer screening rates in women with disabilities. Increasing the representation of women with disabilities in clinical trials may provide another avenue for reducing treatment disparities because these trials often provide breakthrough treatment to women with cancer diagnosed at later stages. Ultimately, attention to the specific needs of patients with disabilities should be improved across the United States to promote inclusive and effective cancer screening and treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The Central Brain Tumor Registry of the United States (CBTRUS) contains information on all primary brain and other central nervous system (CNS) tumors diagnosed in the United States (US). Here we summarize the 2021 CBTRUS annual statistical report for clinicians. Methods Incidence survival data are obtained from the Centers for Disease Control's National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR) and National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program. Survival data are obtained from NPCR. Mortality data are obtained from the National Vital Statistics System. Incidence and mortality rates are age-adjusted using the 2000 US population and presented per 100,000 population. Results An annual average of 86,355 cases of primary malignant and nonmalignant CNS tumors were diagnosed over the period 2014–2018, corresponding to an average annual age-adjusted incidence rate of 24.25. The most commonly occurring malignant tumor was glioblastoma (14.3%), and the most common predominately nonmalignant tumor was meningioma (39%). Over the 2014–2018 period, there were 16,606 annual average deaths due to malignant primary CNS tumors, corresponding to an average annual age-adjusted mortality rate of 4.43. In this report we detail key incidence, survival, and mortality statistics for major primary CNS tumor histologies, highlighting relevant differences by age, sex, and race. Conclusions This summary describes the most up to date population-based incidence of primary malignant and nonmalignant brain and other CNS tumors in the US, and mortality and survival for primary malignant tumors and aims to serve as a useful resource for clinicians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Monitoring outcomes of health care providers, such as patient deaths, hospitalizations, and hospital readmissions, helps in assessing the quality of health care. We consider a large database on patients being treated at dialysis facilities in the United States, and the problem of identifying facilities with outcomes that are better than or worse than expected. Analyses of such data have been commonly based on random or fixed facility effects, which have shortcomings that can lead to unfair assessments. A primary issue is that they do not appropriately account for variation between providers that is outside the providers' control due, for example, to unobserved patient characteristics that vary between providers. In this article, we propose a smoothed empirical null approach that accounts for the total variation and adapts to different provider sizes. The linear model provides an illustration that extends easily to other non-linear models for survival or binary outcomes, for example. The empirical null method is generalized to allow for some variation being due to quality of care. These methods are examined with numerical simulations and applied to the monitoring of survival in the dialysis facility data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We report the results of a survey on HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) perceptions, capacity, and barriers at federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) in high–HIV burden jurisdictions in the United States. Health care workers at FQHCs identified multiple barriers to, and strategies for, improving PrEP implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: An estimated >100 million new hepatitis A (hepA) infections occur annually worldwide. Centres for disease control and prevention reported 38795 hepA cases in the US since 2016, and 4475 outbreak-confirmed cases in Europe between 2016- 2018. HepA outbreaks resulted mainly from person-to-person contact, especially among homeless, illegal drug users (IDU) and men who have sex with men (MSM). In 2020, we surveyed US health care providers (HCPs) to understand their knowledge and attitudes towards hepA vaccination in these populations at higher risk of infection and complications. Methods: This was a cross-sectional, web-based survey of 400 HCPs (primary care providers, nurse practitioners, gastroenterologists, internal medicine and infectious disease specialists [IDs], emergency room physicians [ERs]) who had recommended and/or administered hepA vaccines to 19-year-olds. Results: 85% of 371 HCPs reported recommending hepA vaccine to homeless, 87% of 393 to IDU and 83% of 397 to MSM, although vaccination may not actually occur after recommendation. Results varied by specialty, 16% fewer ERs than IDs reported recommending the vaccine in these at-risk populations. Moreover, 64%, 75% and 71% of all (400) HCPs reported extremely important that homeless, IDU and MSM, respectively, get vaccinated for hepA, while 6%, 7% and 8% of all HCPs reported this as slightly, or not important. Reasons for not recommending hepA vaccine to homeless, IDU and MSM included uncertainty on guidelines (reported by 22/56, 24/50 and 29/66 HCPs, respectively) and low risk of infection (reported by 20/56, 30/50 and 27/66 HCPs, respectively). Conclusions: Despite recent hepA outbreaks and strengthened recommendations for vaccination in at-risk populations, knowledge gaps persist among US HCPs. This survey may motivate European countries to reinforce national hepA vaccination recommendations and, in parallel, consider efforts to raise vaccination awareness. Funding: GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA Key messages: Education on hepatitis A vaccination recommendations in at-risk populations is needed. Health care providers’ vaccination knowledge plays a critical role to control the hepatitis A outbreak in the US and preventing hepatitis A in Europe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]