Racial inequality in COVID-treatment and in-hospital length of stay in the US over time

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in COVID-19 Treatments in the United States

INTRODUCTION

Racial and ethnic disparities in patient outcomes following COVID-19 exist, in part, due to factors involving healthcare delivery. The aim of the study was to characterize disparities in the administration of evidence-based COVID-19 treatments among patients hospitalized for COVID-19.

METHODS

Using a large, US hospital database, initiation of COVID-19 treatments was compared among patients hospitalized for COVID-19 between May 2020 and April 2022 according to patient race and ethnicity. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to examine the effect of race and ethnicity on the likelihood of receiving COVID-19 treatments, stratified by baseline supplemental oxygen requirement.

RESULTS

The identified population comprised 317,918 White, 76,715 Black, 9297 Asian, and 50,821 patients of other or unknown race. There were 329,940 non-Hispanic, 74,199 Hispanic, and 50,622 patients of unknown ethnicity. White patients were more likely to receive COVID-19 treatments, and specifically corticosteroids, compared to Black, Asian, and other patients (COVID-19 treatment: 87% vs. 81% vs. 85% vs. 84%, corticosteroids: 85% vs. 79% vs. 82% vs. 82%). After covariate adjustment, White patients were significantly more likely to receive COVID-19 treatments than Black patients across all levels of supplemental oxygen requirement. No clear trend in COVID-19 treatments according to ethnicity (Hispanic vs. non-Hispanic) was observed.

CONCLUSION

There were important racial disparities in inpatient COVID-19 treatment initiation, including the undertreatment of Black patients and overtreatment of White patients. Our new findings reveal the actual magnitude of this issue in routine clinical practice to clinicians, policymakers, and guideline developers. This is crucial to ensuring equitable and appropriate access to evidence-based therapies.

The role of increasing synchronous telehealth use during the COVID-19 pandemic on disparities in access to healthcare: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

The COVID-19 public health emergency led to an unprecedented rapid increase in telehealth use, but the role of telehealth in reducing disparities in access to care has been questioned. The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review to summarize the available evidence on how telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with telehealth utilization for minority groups and its role in health disparities.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review focused on health equity and access to care by searching for interventional and observational studies using the following four search domains: telehealth, COVID-19, health equity, and access to care. We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, telehealth.hhs.gov, and the Rural Health Research Gateway, and included any study that reported quantitative results with a control group.

RESULTS

Our initial search yielded 1970 studies, and we included 48 in our final review. The most common dimensions of health equity studied were race/ethnicity, rurality, insurance status, language, and socioeconomic status, and the telehealth applications studied were diverse. Included studies had a moderate risk of bias. In aggregate, most studies reported increased telehealth use during the pandemic, with the greatest increase in non-minority populations, including White, younger, English-speaking people from urban areas.

DISCUSSION

We found that despite rapid adoption and increased telehealth use during the public health emergency, telehealth did not reduce existing disparities in access to care. We recommend that future work measuring the impact of telehealth focus on equity so that features of telehealth innovation can reduce disparities in health outcomes.

Community Level Correlates of COVID-19 Booster Vaccine Hesitancy in the United States: A Cross-Sectional Analysis

Introduction: Evidence exists that individual-level sociodemographic factors contribute to vaccine hesitancy, but it is unknown how community-level factors affect COVID-19 booster dose hesitancy. The current study aims to fill this knowledge gap by comparing data from a nationwide survey on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy with a community-level indicator, i.e., the Distressed Communities Index (DCI). Methods: Attitudes toward vaccinations, vaccine literacy, COVID-19 vaccine confidence index, and trust were measured using a 48-item, psychometrically valid and reliable survey tool. In this study, 2138 survey participants residing in the United States were divided into quintiles of varying community distress levels based on their zip codes using the DCI. Data were analyzed through Chi-square, one-way ANOVA, and post hoc analysis with Tukey's test. Results: A significantly higher proportion of participants from the distressed communities had lower trust than their prosperous counterparts (26.6% vs. 37.6%, p < 0.001). On the contrary, participants from the prosperous communities had significantly higher vaccine confidence index scores than those in distressed communities (2.22 ± 1.13 vs. 1.70 ± 1.01, p < 0.001). Conclusions: These findings affirm the importance of developing community-level interventions to promote trust in COVID-19 vaccinations and increase booster dose uptake. From these results, future studies can examine the efficacy of various community-level interventions.