Translating disparities research to policy: a qualitative study of state mental health policymakers' perceptions of mental health care disparities report cards.

Report cards have been used to increase accountability and quality of care in health care settings, and to improve state infrastructure for providing quality mental health care services. However, to date, report cards have not been used to compare states on racial/ethnic disparities in mental health care. This qualitative study examines reactions of mental health care policymakers to a proposed mental health care disparities report card generated from population-based survey data of mental health and mental health care utilization. We elicited feedback about the content, format, and salience of the report card. Interviews were conducted with 9 senior advisors to state policymakers and 1 policy director of a national nongovernmental organization from across the United States. Four primary themes emerged: fairness in state-by-state comparisons; disconnect between the goals and language of policymakers and researchers; concerns about data quality; and targeted suggestions from policymakers. Participant responses provide important information that can contribute to making evidence-based research more accessible to policymakers. Further, policymakers suggested ways to improve the structure and presentation of report cards to make them more accessible to policymakers, and to foster equity considerations during the implementation of new health care legislation. To reduce mental health care disparities, effort is required to facilitate understanding between researchers and relevant stakeholders about research methods, standards for interpretation of research-based evidence, and its use in evaluating policies aimed at ameliorating disparities.

Unmet need for treatment for substance use disorders across race and ethnicity.

BACKGROUND: The objective was to analyze disparities in unmet need for substance use treatment and to observe variation across different definitions of need for treatment. METHODS: Data were analyzed from the 2002 to 2005 National Survey of Drug Use and Health and the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. Logistic regressions estimated the likelihood of specialty substance use treatment across the two data sets. Parallel variables for specialty, informal and any substance abuse treatment were created. Perceived need and normative need for substance use treatment were defined, with normative need stratified across lifetime disorder, past twelve month disorder, and heavy alcohol/any illicit drug use. Treatment rates were analyzed, comparing Blacks, Asians and Latinos to non-Latino whites across need definitions, and adjusting for age, sex, household income, marital status, education and insurance. RESULTS: Asians with past year substance use disorder had a higher likelihood of unmet need for specialty treatment than whites. Blacks with past year disorder and with heavy drinking/illicit drug use had significantly lower likelihood of unmet need. Latinos with past year disorder had a higher likelihood of unmet need for specialty substance abuse treatment. Asians with heavy drinking/illicit drug use had lower likelihood of unmet need. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that pathways to substance abuse treatment differ across groups. Given high rates of unmet need, a broad approach to defining need for treatment is warranted. Future research to disentangle social and systemic factors from factors based on diagnostic criteria is necessary in the identification of need for treatment.