Impact of Social Determinants of Health on Stereotactic Radiotherapy for Vestibular Schwannoma

Impact of Patient Factors on Attendance at Remote Telehealth Swallow Therapy

In-person swallow therapy is a primary and effective treatment for dysphagia. However, remote telehealth is now a widely utilized component of healthcare delivery for therapeutic interventions. This study evaluates potential factors influencing attendance at telehealth swallow therapy. Retrospective review of 308 patients referred for telehealth swallow therapy from April 2020-November 2021 included patient referral diagnosis, diagnostic swallowing evaluations, and sociodemographic information including age, race, health insurance, interpreter use, and socioeconomic status. Univariable and multivariable analyses compared patient and appointment factors for those who attended telehealth swallow therapy with those who did not attend. Overall, 71.8% of patients attended at least one telehealth swallow therapy appointment while 28.2% did not attend any. The most common referral diagnoses were "Cancer" (19.2%) and "Dysphagia Unspecified" (19.2%). Patients diagnosed with "Cancer" and "Muscle Tension" were significantly less likely to attend telehealth swallow therapy compared to those with "Dysphagia Unspecified," "Globus," and "Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease/Laryngopharyngeal Reflux" after adjusting for covariates. Lower socioeconomic status (p = 0.023), no interpreter use (p < 0.001), and more diagnostic evaluations (p = 0.001) correlated with higher telehealth swallow therapy attendance. Race and sex did not correlate with attendance. Most patients referred to telehealth swallow therapy attended at least one appointment. Patients with dysphagia associated with cancer and muscle tension, those with higher socioeconomic status, interpreter use, and fewer diagnostic swallowing evaluations were less likely to attend telehealth swallow therapy. Future research should investigate and compare attendance and efficacy of telehealth swallow therapy with in-person therapy.

Disparities in Sporadic Vestibular Schwannoma Initial Presentation Between a Public Safety Net Hospital and Tertiary Academic Medical Center at the Same Zip Code 2010 to 2020

INTRODUCTION

Treatment of vestibular schwannoma (VS) has been extensively studied, but a gap in knowledge exists demonstrating how racial and socioeconomic status influence VS presentation. Our institution has a unique setting with a public safety net hospital (PSNH) and tertiary academic medical center (TAMC) in the same zip code, which we study to evaluate initial VS presentation disparities in patient populations presenting to these hospital settings.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review was performed of all adult patients (n = 531) presenting 2010 to 2020 for initial VS evaluation at TAMC (n = 462) and PSNH (n = 69). Ethnicity, insurance, maximum tumor size, audiometry, initial treatment recommendation, treatment received, and follow up were recorded and statistical analysis performed to determine differences.

RESULTS

Average age at diagnosis (51.7 ± 13.6 TAMC vs 52.3 ± 12.4 PSNH) and gender (58.4% TAMC vs 52.2% PSNH female) were similar. Patients' insurance (TAMC 75.9% privately insured vs PSNH 82% Medicaid) and racial/ethnic profiles (TAMC 67.7% White and 10.0% Hispanic/Latinx, vs PSNH 4.8% White but 59.7% Hispanic/Latinx) were significantly different. Tumor size was larger at PSNH (20.2 ± 13.3 mm) than TAMC (16.6 ± 10.0 mm). Hearing was more impaired at PSNH than TAMC (mean pure tone average 58.3 dB vs 43.9 dB, word recognition scores 52.3% vs 68.2%, respectively). Initial treatment recommendations and treatment received may include more than 1 modality. TAMC patients were offered 66.7% surgery, 31.2% observation, and 5.2% radiation, while PSNH patients offered 50.7% observation, 49.3% surgery, and 8.7% radiation. TAMC patients received 62.9% surgery, 32.5% observation, and 5.3% radiation, while PSNH patients received 36.2% surgery, 59.4% observation, and 14.5% radiation. Follow up and treatment at the same facility was not significantly different between hospitals.

CONCLUSIONS

Hearing was worse and tumor size larger in patients presenting to PSNH. Despite worse hearing status and larger tumor size, the majority of PSNH patients were initially offered observation, compared to TAMC where most patients were initially offered surgery.

Socioeconomic determinants impact quality of life at vestibular schwannoma diagnosis

BACKGROUND

Socioeconomic variables including race, education, and income have been shown to affect vestibular schwannoma incidence, treatment, and outcomes. We sought to determine the impact of socioeconomic factors on quality of life at the time of vestibular schwannoma diagnosis.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study conducted at a tertiary academic center. All patients evaluated for vestibular schwannoma from March 1, 2010 to December 31, 2021 who completed at least one Penn Acoustic Neuroma Quality of Life (PANQOL) questionnaire at presentation or prior to any intervention were included. PANQOL scores were compared across income quintiles, racial groups, and health insurance categories.

RESULTS

Two-hundred and ninety-six patients who had non-missing information on variables of interest were included. Compared to White/Caucasian patients (84.5 %), Black/African American patients (4.7 %) had significantly lower PANQOL total scores (b = -12.8[-21.7, -4.0], p = 0.005). Compared to patients with Commercial insurance (53 %), patients who were Uninsured/ Self-pay (1.7 %) had significantly lower PANQOL total scores (b = -16.7[-31.4, -1.9], p = 0.027). Patients in higher income quintiles had significantly higher PANQOL total scores (b = 11.7[3.9, 19.5], p = 0.004 comparing highest income quintile to lowest). After controlling for potential confounders, income quintile (b = 9.6[1.3, 17.9], p = 0.023 comparing highest quintile to lowest) and insurance (b = -17.0[-31.9, -21], p = 0.025 comparing Uninsured/Self-pay to Commercial insurance) remained predictors of total PANQOL score.

CONCLUSIONS

Socioeconomic factors including race, health insurance, and income appear to contribute to quality of life at the time of vestibular schwannoma diagnosis. These variables are interrelated and the effects of race may be mediated in part by differences in income and health insurance coverage.

Investigating health disparities in vestibular rehabilitation

BACKGROUND

Health disparities (HD) impact care delivery and health outcomes in individuals with vestibular disorders (IVD).

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to identify whether health disparities (HD) exist in Vestibular Rehabilitation (VR) between individuals identifying as Caucasians or racial or ethnic minorities (REM).

METHODS

This study was a retrospective chart review of IVD who attended outpatient VR between 1/2014 and 9/2020. Data recorded included age, gender, race/ethnicity, vestibular diagnosis, VR interventions, and pre-post outcome measures such as Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI), and Activities-Specific Balance Confidence Scale (ABC), Gait speed (GS), and Functional Gait Assessment (FGA). Chi-squared tests, one-tailed, and two-tailed t-tests (α= 0.05) were utilized to compare Caucasian and REM groups.

RESULTS

Three hundred and forty-three charts (N = 343) met inclusion/exclusion criteria. REM demonstrated higher median DHI scores (46 vs. 38, p = 0.008) and lower ABC scores (53.10% vs. 66.30%, p < 0.001) at VR evaluation compared to Caucasians. There were no statistically significant differences in DHI, ABC, FGA, and GS scores between Caucasians and REM at discharge.

CONCLUSIONS

VR was able to equalize HD in DHI and ABC which initially existed between REM and Caucasians. VR therapists should work with public health and policy researchers to improve access to VR.

Socioeconomic Disparities in the Pursuit of Care at a High-Volume Institution for Surgical Resection of Vestibular Schwannomas

OBJECTIVE

Increased institutional surgical resection case volume for vestibular schwannomas (VSs) has been associated with improved patient outcomes, including reduced risk of prolonged hospital stay and readmission. Socioeconomic disparities in the pursuit of care at these high-volume institutions remain unknown.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort epidemiological study.

SETTING

National Cancer Database, a hospital-based registry of over 1,500 facilities in the United States.

PATIENTS

Adult VS patients (age, >18 years) treated surgically.

INTERVENTIONS

High- versus low-volume facilities, defined using a facility case volume threshold of 25 cases per year. A risk-adjusted restricted cubic spline model was previously used to identify this risk threshold beyond which the incremental benefit of increasing case volume began to plateau.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Sociodemographic factors, including race, ethnicity, income, insurance status, and rurality. Multivariable analyses were adjusted for patient and tumor characteristics, including age, sex, Charlson-Deyo score, and tumor size.

RESULTS

A totoal of 10,048 patients were identified (median [interquartile range] age = 51 [41-60] years, 54% female, 87% Caucasian). Patients with Spanish/Hispanic ethnicity (OR = 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.52-0.96), income below median (OR = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.55-0.73]), and Medicare, Medicaid, or other government insurance versus private insurance (OR = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.53-0.74) had reduced odds of treatment at a high-volume facility. Further sensitivity analyses in which facility volume was operationalized continuously reinforced direction and significance of these associations.

CONCLUSIONS

Socioeconomic disparities exist in the propensity for VS patients to be treated at a high-volume facility. Further work is needed to understand the nature of these associations and whether interventions can be designed to mitigate them.

Going the distance in acoustic neuroma resection: microsurgical outcomes at high-volume centers of excellence

PURPOSE

High-volume hospitals are associated with improved surgical outcomes for acoustic neuromas (ANs). Due to the benign and slow-growing nature of ANs, many patients travel to geographically distant cities, states, or countries for their treatment. However, the impact of travel burden to high-volume centers, as well as its relative benefit are poorly understood. We compared post-operative outcomes between AN patients that underwent treatment at local, low-volume hospitals with those that traveled long distances to high-volume hospitals.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was used to analyze AN patients that underwent surgery (2004-2015). Patients in the lowest quartile of travel distance and volume (Short-travel/Low-Volume: STLV) were compared to patients in the highest quartile of travel distance and volume (Long-travel/High-Volume: LTHV). Only STLV and LTHV cases were included for analysis.

RESULTS

Of 13,370 cases, 2,408 met inclusion criteria. STLV patients (n = 1,305) traveled a median of 6 miles (Interquartile range [IQR] 3-9) to low-volume centers (median 2, IQR 1-3 annual cases) and LTHV patients (n = 1,103) traveled a median of 143 miles [IQR 103-230, maximum 4,797] to high-volume centers (median 34, IQR 28-42 annual cases). LTHV patients had lower Charlson/Deyo scores (p = 0.001), mostly received care at academic centers (81.7% vs. 39.4%, p < 0.001), and were less likely to be minorities (7.0% vs. 24.2%, p < 0.001) or underinsured (4.2% vs. 13.8%, p < 0.001). There was no difference in average tumor size. On multivariable analysis, LTHV predicted increased likelihood of gross total resection (odds ratio [OR] 5.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.8-8.4, p < 0.001), longer duration between diagnosis and surgery (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.0-1.6, p = 0.040), decreased length of hospital stay (OR 0.5, 95% CI 0.4-0.7, p < 0.001), and greater overall survival (Hazard Ratio [HR] 0.6, 95% CI 0.4-0.95, p = 0.029). There was no significant difference in 30-day readmission on adjusted analysis.

CONCLUSION

Although traveling farther to high-volume centers was associated with greater time between diagnosis and treatment for AN patients, they experienced superior postoperative outcomes compared to patients who received treatment locally at low-volume centers. Enabling access and travel to high-volume centers may improve AN patient outcomes.