Assessment of Racial/Ethnic and Income Disparities in the Prescription of Opioids and Other Controlled Medications in California.

Importance: Most drug epidemics in the United States have disproportionately affected nonwhite communities. Notably, the current opioid epidemic is heavily concentrated among low-income white communities, and the roots of this racial/ethnic phenomenon have not been adequately explained. Objective: To examine the degree to which differential exposure to opioids via the health care system by race/ethnicity and income could be driving the observed social gradient of the current opioid epidemic, as well as to compare the trends in the prevalence of prescription opioids with those observed for stimulants and benzodiazepines. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based study used 2011 through 2015 records from California's prescription drug monitoring program (Controlled Substance Utilization Review and Evaluation System), which longitudinally tracks all patients receiving controlled substance prescriptions in the state and contained unique records for 29.7 million individuals who received such a prescription from 2011 to 2015. Data were analyzed between January and May 2018. Exposures: A total of 1760 zip code tabulation areas (ZCTAs) in California, with associated racial/ethnic composition and per capita income. Main Outcomes and Measures: The percentage of individuals receiving at least 1 prescription each year was calculated for opioids, benzodiazepines, and stimulants. Results: A nearly 300% difference in opioid prescription prevalence across the race/ethnicity-income gradient was observed in California, with 44.2% of adults in the quintile of ZCTAs with the lowest-income/highest proportion-white population receiving at least 1 opioid prescription each year compared with 16.1% in the quintile with the highest-income/lowest proportion-white population and 23.6% of all individuals 15 years or older. Stimulant prescriptions were highly concentrated in mostly white high-income areas, with a prevalence of 3.8% among individuals in the quintile with the highest-income/highest proportion-white population and a prevalence of 0.6% in the quintile with the lowest-income/lowest proportion-white population. Benzodiazepine prescriptions did not have an income gradient but were concentrated in mostly white areas, with 15.7% of adults in the quintile of ZCTAs with the highest proportion-white population receiving at least 1 prescription each year compared with 7.0% among the quintile with the lowest proportion-white population. Conclusions and Relevance: The race/ethnicity and income pattern of opioid overdoses mirrored prescription rates, suggesting that differential exposure to opioids via the health care system may have induced the large, observed racial/ethnic gradient in the opioid epidemic. Across drug categories, controlled medications were much more likely to be prescribed to individuals living in majority-white areas. These discrepancies may have shielded nonwhite communities from the brunt of the prescription opioid epidemic but also represent disparities in treatment and access to all medications.

Factors affecting stress experienced by surrogate decision makers for critically ill patients: implications for nursing practice.

OBJECTIVES: This study explores surrogate decision-makers' (SDMs) challenges making decisions related to the care of patients in critical care, to (1) characterise the SDM stress, (2) identify personal, social, care-related factors influencing stress and (3) consider implications of findings to improving critical care practice. METHODOLOGY: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with SDMs of critically ill patients receiving care in two tertiary care institutions. Transcripts were analysed using a grounded theory approach. Domains explored were: stress characteristics, stress mitigators, coping strategies, social networks, SDM decision-making role, decision-making concordance, knowledge of patient's preferences, experience with provider team, SDM-provider communication, patient outcome certainty. MAIN OUTCOMES: We interviewed 34 SDMs. Most were female and described long-term relationships with patients. SDMs described the strain of uncertain outcomes and decision-making without clear, consistent information from providers. Decision-making anxiety was buffered by SDMs' active engagement of social networks, faith and access to clear communication from providers. CONCLUSION: Stress is a very real factor influencing SDMs confidence and comfort making decisions. These findings suggest that stress can be minimised by improving communication between SDMs and medical providers. Nurses' central role in the ICU makes them uniquely poised to spearhead interventions to improve provider-SDM communication and reduce SDM decision-making anxiety.

Critical illness research involving collection of genomic data: the conundrum posed by low levels of genomic literacy among surrogate decision makers for critically ill patients.

Critical illness clinical trials that entail genomic data collection pose unique challenges. In this qualitative study, we found that surrogate decision makers (SDMs) for critically ill individuals, such as those who would be approached for study participation, appeared to have a limited grasp of genomic principles. We argue that low levels of genomic literacy should neither preclude nor be in conflict with the conduct of ethically rigorous clinical trials.

Perspectives of surrogate decision makers for critically ill patients regarding gene variation research.

PURPOSE: We undertook this investigation to explore the manner in which surrogate decision makers for critically ill patients perceived genetic data collected in the context of clinical investigation. METHODS: Surrogate decision makers for critically ill patients cared for in intensive care units of two urban hospitals participated in focus groups designed to explore perceptions regarding gene variation research. RESULTS: Surrogate decision makers were generally familiar with genetic concepts and reported that they could provide an informed opinion regarding permitting (or declining) the participation of their loved ones in gene variation research. Respondents perceived the risk associated with this type of research largely as the risk associated with acquiring the sample (i.e., whether it involved an invasive procedure or not) but appreciated that genetic samples could provide information not readily obtained from nongenetic sources. Concerns about potential misuse of genetic data largely centered on misconduct, paternity, forensic applications, and insurance and employment discrimination. Although surrogate decision makers expressed that their loved ones would have interest in return of results and being recontacted for future use, these interests were secondary to confidentiality concerns. CONCLUSION: Respondents perceived genetic and nongenetic data as comparable. Informed consent processes that provide clear information regarding confidentiality protections, specimen handling, and parameters for future use may enhance enrollment.Genet Med 2013:15(5):368-373.

Real-time perspectives of surrogate decision-makers regarding critical illness research: findings of focus group participants.

OBJECTIVE: We undertook the current investigation to explore how the pressures of serving as a surrogate decision-maker (SDM) for an acutely ill family member influence attitudes regarding clinical investigation. METHODS: We conducted a prospective study involving SDMs for critically ill patients cared for in the ICUs of two urban hospitals. Measurements included participation in focus groups designed to explore perceptions of ICU care and clinical research. Audiotapes were transcribed and analyzed to identify common patterns and themes using grounded theory. Demographic and clinical data were summarized using standard statistical methods. RESULTS: Seventy-four SDMs (corresponding to 24% of eligible patients) participated. Most SDMs were women and described long-term relationships with the patients represented. SDMs described their role as "overwhelming," their emotions were accentuated by the fatigue of the ICU experience, and they relied on family members, social contacts, and religion as sources of support. Altruism was reported as a common motivation for potential study participation, a sentiment often strengthened by the critical illness episode. Although research was viewed as optional, some SDMs perceived invitation for research participation as tacit acknowledgment of therapeutic failure. SDMs expressed a preference for observational studies (perceived as low risk) over interventional designs (perceived as higher risk). Trust in the ICU team and the research enterprise seemed tightly linked. CONCLUSIONS: Despite significant emotional duress, SDMs expressed interest in investigation and described multiple factors motivating participation. Consent processes that minimize the effects of anxiety may be one strategy to enhance recruitment.

Considerations in the construction of an instrument to assess attitudes regarding critical illness gene variation research.

Clinical studies conducted in intensive care units are associated with logistical and ethical challenges. Diseases investigated are precipitous and life-threatening, care is highly technological, and patients are often incapacitated and decision-making is provided by surrogates. These investigations increasingly involve collection of genetic data. The manner in which the exigencies of critical illness impact attitudes regarding genetic data collection is unstudied. Given interest in understanding stakeholder preferences as a foundation for the ethical conduct of research, filling this knowledge gap is timely. The conduct of opinion research in the critical care arena is novel. This brief report describes the development of parallel patient/surrogate decision-maker quantitative survey instruments for use in this environment. Future research employing this instrument or a variant of it with diverse populations promises to inform research practices in critical illness gene variation research.

Fitting in matters: markers of in-group belonging and academic outcomes.

Minority boys are at risk of academic disengagement. Prior research documents that an aspect of racial-ethnic identity, in-group connection, can buffer against this risk, but that in-group connection is undermined in high-risk neighborhoods. We examined another way that boys may feel connected to the in-group, by looking like in-group members. We hypothesize that physical markers of in-group membership can serve to improve boys' sense of belongingness, thereby facilitating their engagement in school. We tested our model with low-income, high-risk African American (Study 1, n= 102) and Latino (Study 2, n= 66) teens. Hierarchical regression supported our model; dark skin tone was a protective factor (and light skin tone a risk factor) for African American boys, and feeling that one looks Latino was a protective factor (and feeling that one does not look Latino a risk factor) for Latino boys' grades, in-class behavior, and school engagement. Mediational analyses suggest that markers of belongingness have their impact via peer-group choice.