We provide a framework for health services-related researchers, practitioners, and policy makers to guide future health disparities research in areas ranging from detecting differences in health and health care to understanding the determinants that underlie disparities to ultimately designing interventions that reduce and eliminate these disparities. To do this, we identified potential selection biases and definitions of vulnerable groups when detecting disparities. The key factors to understanding disparities were multilevel determinants of health disparities, including individual beliefs and preferences, effective patient-provider communication; and the organizational culture of the health care system. We encourage interventions that yield generalizable data on their effectiveness and that promote further engagement of communities, providers, and policymakers to ultimately enhance the application and the impact of health disparities research.

This article applied dual process models of stereotyping to illustrate how various psychological mechanisms may lead to unintentional provider bias in decisions about pain treatment. Stereotypes have been shown to influence judgments and behaviors by two distinct cognitive processes, automatic stereotyping and goal-modified stereotyping, which differ both in level of individual conscious control and how much they are influenced by the goals in an interaction. Although these two processes may occur simultaneously and are difficult to disentangle, the conceptual distinction is important because unintentional bias that results from goal-modified rather than automatic stereotyping requires different types of interventions. We proposed a series of hypotheses that showed how these different processes may lead providers to contribute to disparities in pain treatment: 1) indirectly, by influencing the content and affective tone of the clinical encounter; and 2) directly, by influencing provider decision making. We also highlighted situations that may increase the likelihood that stereotype-based bias will occur and suggested directions for future research and interventions.

Improving provision of palliative care in oncology will likely require efforts beyond increasing service availability. Raising awareness of ways in which subspecialty palliative care complements standard oncology care and developing ways for oncologists and palliative care physicians to collaborate and integrate their respective skills may help.

No abstract

Background Patients with hematologic malignancies are less likely to receive specialist palliative care services than patients with solid tumors. Reasons for this difference are poorly understood. Methods This was a multisite, mixed-methods study to understand and contrast perceptions of palliative care among hematologic and solid tumor oncologists, using surveys assessing referral practices, and in-depth semi-structured interviews exploring views of palliative care. We compared referral patterns using standard statistical methods. We analyzed qualitative interview data using constant comparative methods, to explore reasons for observed differences. Results Among 66 interviewees, 23 oncologists cared exclusively for patients with hematologic malignancies; 43 treated only patients with solid tumors. Seven of 23 hematologic oncologists (30%) reported never referring to palliative care; all solid tumor oncologists had previously referred. In qualitative analyses, most hematologic oncologists viewed palliative care as end-of-life care, while most solid tumor oncologists viewed palliative care as a subspecialty that could assist with complex cases. Solid tumor oncologists emphasized practical barriers to palliative care referral, such as appointment availability and reimbursement issues. Hematologic oncologists emphasized philosophical concerns about palliative care referrals, including different treatment goals, responsiveness to chemotherapy, and a preference to control even palliative aspects of patient care. Conclusions Most hematologic oncologists view palliative care as end-of-life care, while solid tumor oncologists more often view palliative care as a subspecialty for co-managing complex patients. Efforts to integrate palliative care into hematologic malignancy practices will require solutions that address unique barriers to palliative care referral experienced by hematologic malignancy specialists.

No abstract

No abstract

Use of live donors as a source of transplantable livers has expanded to include adult recipients. Followup reports concerning living donor experiences are short-term and primarily focus on medical outcomes. We present our quality of life findings from a purposive sampling of a cohort of adult-to-pediatric live liver donors, 3-10 years after donation. In-depth interviews conducted among 15 live donors revealed the spectrum of complexity and impact that donation had on the donors. Virtually all donors (14/15) reported that they never really made a decision to donate; rather, agreeing to donate was an automatic leap. Overall, 10 out of the 15 donors related a sense that they were considered nonpatients by the medical team and family members in two primary areas: post operative treatment of pain (6/15) and long-term follow-up care (9/15) with five donors reporting concerns in both areas. Overall, family relationships were believed to have been strengthened by the donation process. Most donors experienced some degree of financial strain with three donors maintaining unrewarding employment to continue healthcare insurance. The majority of donors reported that return to normalcy took a significant amount of time even though no serious medical consequences were experienced. These observations serve to highlight some of the long-term quality of life issues that persist beyond the medical consequences of live donation.