Differences in provider recommendations for Black/African American and White patients with irritable bowel syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Health disparities and barriers to equitable care for patients from racial and ethnic minority backgrounds are common. We sought to evaluate disparities in management recommendations among Black/African American (AA) patients seeking care for IBS. METHODS: We assembled a retrospective cohort of patients at two tertiary care centers who were self-identifying as Black/AA and attended a first gastroenterology consult for IBS. These patients were age- and sex-matched to White controls with IBS also attending an initial gastroenterology consult. Retrospective chart review determined patient demographics, income, comorbidities, as well as provider management recommendations including pharmacologic therapies and non-pharmacologic interventions. KEY RESULTS: Among 602 IBS patients ages 14-88 (M ± SD = 43.6 ± 18.6 years) with IBS, those who identified as Black/AA (n = 301) had a lower estimated mean income and were significantly more likely to have a number of specific chronic medical conditions. Black/AA patients were significantly less likely to have implemented dietary changes for symptoms prior to receiving a diagnosis of IBS from a gastroenterologist. Black/AA patients were also less likely to receive a referral to a dietician within 1 year following their diagnosis of IBS (p = 0.01). Black/AA patients were prescribed pharmacologic therapy more often for constipation (41.9% vs. 34.6%, p = 0.01). It was more common for White patients to present at the initial encounter having already initiated a neuromodulator (41.9% vs. 27.9%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION & INFERENCES: Management recommendations for IBS appear to vary by race, specifically for dietary advice and referrals.

Learning to Prioritize Our Collaborative Opportunities: Overcoming the Bright Shiny Object Syndrome.

ABSTRACT: There are multiple opportunities to participate in team science, leading to long-term benefits (eg, research impact, novelty, productivity). Scholars are not well-trained in how to choose among these opportunities, often learning via trial and error. The ability to navigate collaborations is framed by several principles and considerations: (1) locus of control (what control we have over our own behavior) and how it affects academic job satisfaction; (2) the scarcity mindset that may manifest as a result of the fear of missing future opportunities; and (3) power dynamics and inequities (eg, among women and racial/ethnic minority individuals). To provide a more systematic approach to weighing academic opportunities, the authors offer 30 questions across six overlapping domains. The domains include: the big picture (eg, Is the opportunity a building block for your career?), context (eg, How much do you have on your plate?), person (eg, Who is asking?), team (eg, Is the team productive?), role (eg, Will you lead or assist?), and outcomes (eg, Might the opportunity lead to publications and/or grants?). We offer advice for decision-making. For example, when presented with an opportunity involving a significant time commitment, it is useful to allow at least 24 hours before deciding. The authors offer advice and sample language for communicating your decision. Although every situation is different, there are several fundamental issues and questions to consider when one is presented with a new opportunity-these questions are suggested for mentors and mentees.

Use of a mixed-methods approach to develop a guidebook with messaging to encourage colorectal cancer screening among Black individuals 45 and older.

INTRODUCTION: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States and disproportionately impacts Black individuals. Here, we describe the mixed-methods approach used to develop a tailored message guidebook to promote CRC screening among Black individuals in the setting of recently updated screening guidelines. METHODS: This mixed-methods study included 10 in-depth qualitative interviews and 490 surveys in a nationally representative sample of unscreened Black individuals age ≥ 45. Messages were developed based on American Cancer Society (ACS) and National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable (NCCRT) research findings, tested among Black individuals using MaxDiff analytic methods, and reviewed by a multi-sector expert advisory committee of NCCRT members. RESULTS: The most frequently reported screening barrier in all age groups was self-reported procrastination (40.0% in age 45-49, 42.8% for age 50-54, 34.2% for age ≥ 55). Reasons for procrastination varied by age and included financial concerns, COVID-19 concerns, and fear of the test and bowel preparation. Additional screening barriers included lack of symptoms, provider recommendation, and family history of CRC. Most individuals age 45-49 preferred to receive screening information from a healthcare provider (57.5%); however, only 20% reported that a provider had initiated a screening conversation. CONCLUSIONS: We identified age-specific barriers to CRC screening and tailored messaging to motivate participation among unscreened Black people age ≥ 45. Findings informed the development of the NCCRT and ACS guidebook for organizations and institutions aiming to increase CRC screening participation in Black individuals.

Epidemiology of Inflammatory Bowel Disease in a Cohort of US Black Women.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), including ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease, are inflammatory diseases of the gastrointestinal tract. The incidence of IBD is increasing in minority populations; however, little is known about the epidemiology and disease characteristics of IBD in Black women. METHODS: Our study population included participants in the Black Women's Health Study. Diagnosis of IBD was self-reported through the biennial questionnaires starting at baseline in 1995. We estimated the incidence of IBD according to age and geographic region. A follow-up supplementary questionnaire was also sent to a subset of participants who reported diagnosis of IBD to evaluate the accuracy of self-reported diagnosis and to assess disease characteristics. RESULTS: Through December 31, 2021, a total of 609 cases of IBD were reported, of which 142 were prevalent at baseline (prevalence, 0.24%), and 467 were incident (crude incidence rate, 33.2/100 000 person-years). The incidence of IBD was highest in the younger than 30 years age group and similar across geographic region. Among the participants who responded to the supplementary questionnaire, 57.1% had confirmed diagnosis of IBD. CONCLUSIONS: In a large prospective cohort of US Black women, we found that the incidence of IBD was similar to previously published estimates in US White women. Future studies should focus on identifying risk factors for IBD in Black individuals in the United States.

The mental health burden of racial and ethnic minorities during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Racial/ethnic minorities have been disproportionately impacted by COVID-19. The effects of COVID-19 on the long-term mental health of minorities remains unclear. To evaluate differences in odds of screening positive for depression and anxiety among various racial and ethnic groups during the latter phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, we performed a cross-sectional analysis of 691,473 participants nested within the prospective smartphone-based COVID Symptom Study in the United States (U.S.) and United Kingdom (U.K). from February 23, 2021 to June 9, 2021. In the U.S. (n=57,187), compared to White participants, the multivariable odds ratios (ORs) for screening positive for depression were 1·16 (95% CI: 1·02 to 1·31) for Black, 1·23 (1·11 to 1·36) for Hispanic, and 1·15 (1·02 to 1·30) for Asian participants, and 1·34 (1·13 to 1·59) for participants reporting more than one race/other even after accounting for personal factors such as prior history of a mental health disorder, COVID-19 infection status, and surrounding lockdown stringency. Rates of screening positive for anxiety were comparable. In the U.K. (n=643,286), racial/ethnic minorities had similarly elevated rates of positive screening for depression and anxiety. These disparities were not fully explained by changes in leisure time activities. Racial/ethnic minorities bore a disproportionate mental health burden during the COVID-19 pandemic. These differences will need to be considered as health care systems transition from prioritizing infection control to mitigating long-term consequences.

Artificial intelligence in gastroenterology and hepatology: how to advance clinical practice while ensuring health equity.

Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) systems are increasingly used in medicine to improve clinical decision-making and healthcare delivery. In gastroenterology and hepatology, studies have explored a myriad of opportunities for AI/ML applications which are already making the transition to bedside. Despite these advances, there is a risk that biases and health inequities can be introduced or exacerbated by these technologies. If unrecognised, these technologies could generate or worsen systematic racial, ethnic and sex disparities when deployed on a large scale. There are several mechanisms through which AI/ML could contribute to health inequities in gastroenterology and hepatology, including diagnosis of oesophageal cancer, management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), liver transplantation, colorectal cancer screening and many others. This review adapts a framework for ethical AI/ML development and application to gastroenterology and hepatology such that clinical practice is advanced while minimising bias and optimising health equity.

Inflammatory bowel disease in underserved populations: lessons for practice.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The incidence of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is increasing in minority groups across the USA. There are racial and ethnic disparities in IBD care and outcomes that are rooted in historical injustice and inequities in the social determinants of health. RECENT FINDINGS: Current literature has identified racial, ethnic and sociodemographic disparities in therapeutics and outcomes for IBD, including disease severity, morbidity and mortality. SUMMARY: Strategies to achieve equity in IBD include tackling structural racism as a driver of health disparities and making actionable changes against multilevel barriers to care.

The Impact of the Social Determinants of Health on Disparities in Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

The incidence of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is rising in racial and ethnic minority groups in the United States, and socioeconomic, racial, and ethnic disparities in IBD are increasingly being identified. In addition, there has been great appreciation for the social determinants of health as contributors to these disparities, and that upstream social determinants of health propagate downstream poor health outcomes in IBD. We propose strategies to achieve health equity in IBD that target the medical trainee, provider, practice, community, industry, and policy levels.

Self-reported COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and uptake among participants from different racial and ethnic groups in the United States and United Kingdom.

Worldwide, racial and ethnic minorities have been disproportionately impacted by COVID-19 with increased risk of infection, its related complications, and death. In the initial phase of population-based vaccination in the United States (U.S.) and United Kingdom (U.K.), vaccine hesitancy may result in differences in uptake. We performed a cohort study among U.S. and U.K. participants who volunteered to take part in the smartphone-based COVID Symptom Study (March 2020-February 2021) and used logistic regression to estimate odds ratios of vaccine hesitancy and uptake. In the U.S. (n = 87,388), compared to white participants, vaccine hesitancy was greater for Black and Hispanic participants and those reporting more than one or other race. In the U.K. (n = 1,254,294), racial and ethnic minority participants showed similar levels of vaccine hesitancy to the U.S. However, associations between participant race and ethnicity and levels of vaccine uptake were observed to be different in the U.S. and the U.K. studies. Among U.S. participants, vaccine uptake was significantly lower among Black participants, which persisted among participants that self-reported being vaccine-willing. In contrast, statistically significant racial and ethnic disparities in vaccine uptake were not observed in the U.K sample. In this study of self-reported vaccine hesitancy and uptake, lower levels of vaccine uptake in Black participants in the U.S. during the initial vaccine rollout may be attributable to both hesitancy and disparities in access.

Race, ethnicity, community-level socioeconomic factors, and risk of COVID-19 in the United States and the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: There is limited prior investigation of the combined influence of personal and community-level socioeconomic factors on racial/ethnic disparities in individual risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis nested within a prospective cohort of 2,102,364 participants from March 29, 2020 in the United States (US) and March 24, 2020 in the United Kingdom (UK) through December 02, 2020 via the COVID Symptom Study smartphone application. We examined the contribution of community-level deprivation using the Neighborhood Deprivation Index (NDI) and the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) to observe racial/ethnic disparities in COVID-19 incidence. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT04331509. FINDINGS: Compared with non-Hispanic White participants, the risk for a positive COVID-19 test was increased in the US for non-Hispanic Black (multivariable-adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18-1.47) and Hispanic participants (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.33-1.52) and in the UK for Black (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.02-1.34), South Asian (OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.30-1.49), and Middle Eastern participants (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.18-1.61). This elevated risk was associated with living in more deprived communities according to the NDI/IMD. After accounting for downstream mediators of COVID-19 risk, community-level deprivation still mediated 16.6% and 7.7% of the excess risk in Black compared to White participants in the US and the UK, respectively. INTERPRETATION: Our results illustrate the critical role of social determinants of health in the disproportionate COVID-19 risk experienced by racial and ethnic minorities.

Racial and ethnic differences in COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and uptake.

BACKGROUND: Racial and ethnic minorities have been disproportionately impacted by COVID-19. In the initial phase of population-based vaccination in the United States (U.S.) and United Kingdom (U.K.), vaccine hesitancy and limited access may result in disparities in uptake. METHODS: We performed a cohort study among U.S. and U.K. participants in the smartphone-based COVID Symptom Study (March 24, 2020-February 16, 2021). We used logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (ORs) of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy (unsure/not willing) and receipt. RESULTS: In the U.S. ( n =87,388), compared to White non-Hispanic participants, the multivariable ORs of vaccine hesitancy were 3.15 (95% CI: 2.86 to 3.47) for Black participants, 1.42 (1.28 to 1.58) for Hispanic participants, 1.34 (1.18 to 1.52) for Asian participants, and 2.02 (1.70 to 2.39) for participants reporting more than one race/other. In the U.K. ( n =1,254,294), racial and ethnic minorities had similarly elevated hesitancy: compared to White participants, their corresponding ORs were 2.84 (95% CI: 2.69 to 2.99) for Black participants, 1.66 (1.57 to 1.76) for South Asian participants, 1.84 (1.70 to 1.98) for Middle East/East Asian participants, and 1.48 (1.39 to 1.57) for participants reporting more than one race/other. Among U.S. participants, the OR of vaccine receipt was 0.71 (0.64 to 0.79) for Black participants, a disparity that persisted among individuals who specifically endorsed a willingness to obtain a vaccine. In contrast, disparities in uptake were not observed in the U.K. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was greater among racial and ethnic minorities, and Black participants living in the U.S. were less likely to receive a vaccine than White participants. Lower uptake among Black participants in the U.S. during the initial vaccine rollout is attributable to both hesitancy and disparities in access.

Prevalence of Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is a significant public health burden, with up to 30% of the US population affected. The prevalence of NAFLD among inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients is unknown. Understanding risk factors for NAFLD in IBD patients has implications in the treatment of these patients. The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence of NAFLD among IBD patients and to identify risk factors associated with NAFLD development. METHODS: Embase and MEDLINE databases were searched using Medical Subject Headlines to find studies that assessed the prevalence of NAFLD among IBD patients. Twenty-seven English-language research abstracts/articles were identified between January 2005 and April 2018. Meta-analyses were performed using random-effects models. Prevalence of NAFLD among IBD patients was compared with prevalence of NAFLD in the general population. RESULTS: Based on data pooled from all 27 studies, the prevalence of NAFLD among IBD patients was 32% (95% CI, 24%-40%) with substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 98%). The prevalence of NAFLD among IBD patients (32%) is statistically significantly higher than the prevalence of NAFLD in the general population (25.2%; P < 0.001). Factors associated with the development of NAFLD among IBD patients included age, BMI, diabetes, IBD duration, and prior history of bowel resection. CONCLUSIONS: There is a higher prevalence of NAFLD among IBD patients compared with the general population. Previous treatment regimens may be a risk factor for the development of NAFLD. Future studies are needed to further clarify these risk factors and determine screening recommendations.

Black Race and Public Insurance Are Predictive of Inappropriate Evaluation of Iron Deficiency Anemia and Diarrhea.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Socioeconomic status, race, and insurance can impact healthcare delivery and utilization in several chronic disease states. The primary aim of our study was to determine whether race and insurance status are predictors of having an appropriate workup for celiac disease and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) when presenting with iron deficiency anemia (IDA) and chronic diarrhea. METHODS: Medical records of patients seen at the University of Chicago Medical Center between January 1, 2006, and September 20, 2017, were reviewed. Patients with two separate encounters within 6 months associated with the diagnosis codes for both IDA and chronic diarrhea were identified. Patients without a diagnosis code for IBD and celiac disease were further grouped as those that had an "appropriate" workup and those that did not. Factors associated with the appropriate evaluation were analyzed by univariate and multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: In total, 899,701 records were searched. A total of 83 patients fit inclusion into the study (8 IBD, 3 CD, 72 neither IBD or CD). Black race was associated with a 91% decreased odds of having the appropriate workup on univariate (OR 0.090, 95%CI 0.017-0.475, p = 0.005) and age-adjusted multivariate analysis (OR 0.095, 95% CI 0.017-0.527, p = 0.007). Public insurance status was significantly associated with a 90% decreased odds of appropriate workup on univariate (OR 0.102, 95% CI 0.024-0.438, p = 0.002) and age-adjusted multivariate analysis (OR 0.104, 95% CI 0.021-0.513, p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Black race and public insurance were significantly associated with not having an appropriate workup for IBD and celiac disease when presenting with iron deficiency and chronic diarrhea.

Impact of COVID-19 on colorectal cancer disparities and the way forward.

In response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the U.S. Surgeon General advised all hospitals and ambulatory care centers to delay nonurgent medical procedures and surgeries. This recommendation, echoed by a multigastroenterology society guideline, led to the suspension of colonoscopies for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and surveillance. Although this temporary suspension was necessary to contain COVID-19 infections, we as gastroenterologists, patient advocates, and CRC researchers have witnessed the downstream impact of COVID-19 and this recommendation on CRC screening, research, and advocacy. These effects are particularly noticeable in medically underserved communities where CRC morbidity and mortality are highest. COVID-19-related pauses in medical care, as well as shifts in resource allocation and workforce deployment, threaten decades worth of work to improve CRC disparities in medically underserved populations. In this perspective, we present the unique challenges COVID-19 poses to health equity in CRC prevention and provide potential solutions as we navigate these uncharted waters.