Understanding the Role of Past Health Care Discrimination in Help-Seeking and Shared Decision-Making for Depression Treatment Preferences.

As a part of a larger, mixed-methods research study, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 21 adults with depressive symptoms to understand the role that past health care discrimination plays in shaping help-seeking for depression treatment and receiving preferred treatment modalities. We recruited to achieve heterogeneity of racial/ethnic backgrounds and history of health care discrimination in our participant sample. Participants were Hispanic/Latino (n = 4), non-Hispanic/Latino Black (n = 8), or non-Hispanic/Latino White (n = 9). Twelve reported health care discrimination due to race/ethnicity, language, perceived social class, and/or mental health diagnosis. Health care discrimination exacerbated barriers to initiating and continuing depression treatment among patients from diverse backgrounds or with stigmatized mental health conditions. Treatment preferences emerged as fluid and shaped by shared decisions made within a trustworthy patient-provider relationship. However, patients who had experienced health care discrimination faced greater challenges to forming trusting relationships with providers and thus engaging in shared decision-making processes.

Depression treatment preferences by race/ethnicity and gender and associations between past healthcare discrimination experiences and present preferences in a nationally representative sample.

BACKGROUND: Depression treatment disparities are well documented. Differing treatment preferences across social groups have been suggested as a cause of these disparities. However, existing studies of treatment preferences have been limited to individuals currently receiving clinical care, and existing measures of depression treatment preferences have not accounted for factors that may be disproportionately relevant to the preferences of disparities populations. This study therefore aimed to assess depression treatment preferences by race/ethnicity and gender in a representative community sample, while accounting for access to healthcare, provider characteristics, and past experiences of discrimination in healthcare settings. METHODS: We conducted a nationally representative study of individuals with depression in and out of clinical care. Treatment preferences (medication versus talk therapy) were elicited through a discrete choice experiment that accounted for tradeoffs with factors related to access and provider characteristics deemed relevant by community stakeholders. Past discrimination was assessed through questions about unfair treatment from medical providers and front desk staff due to personal characteristics (e.g., race, gender). We used conditional logit models to assess treatment preferences by race/ethnicity and gender and examined whether preferences were associated with past experiences of healthcare discrimination. RESULTS: Non-Hispanic white respondents (OR-here, the odds of a talk therapy preference over the odds of a medication preference: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.64, 0.99) and men (OR 0.76, 95% CI: 0.60, 0.96) preferred medication over talk therapy, while non-Hispanic black respondents, Hispanic respondents, and women did not prefer one over the other. Past discrimination in healthcare settings was associated with lower preferences for talk therapy and greater preferences for medication, particularly among non-Hispanic black respondents and women respondents. CONCLUSIONS: Addressing previous methodological limitations yielded estimates for depression treatment preferences by race/ethnicity and gender that differed from past studies. Also, past discrimination in healthcare settings was associated with current treatment preferences.

Gathering Diverse Perspectives to Tackle "Wicked Problems": Racial/Ethnic Disproportionality in Educational Placement.

Among students receiving behavioral health and special education services, racial/ethnic minority students are consistently overrepresented in settings separate from general classrooms. Once separated, many young people struggle to improve academically and face significant difficulty upon trying to return to a general education setting. Given the complex, ongoing, and multifaceted nature of this challenge, racial/ethnic disproportionality can be identified as a "wicked problem," for which solutions are not easily identified. Here, we describe our community-engaged research efforts, eliciting perspectives from relevant partners in an ongoing dialogue, to better integrate diverse stakeholders' perspectives when attempting to address such disparities. We conducted focus groups and qualitative interviews with members of three stakeholder groups: community-serving organizations, individuals with lived experience of behavioral health conditions, and state-level policymakers, with a shared interest in addressing racial and ethnic disparities. Participant responses illustrated the "wickedness" of this problem and highlighted the need for additional supports for students, families, and school personnel, increased collaboration across relevant systems and agencies, and reduced barriers related to funding. Overall, this methodology bridged differing perspectives to develop, in concert with our partners, a shared language of the problem and a core set of issues to consider when seeking to effect change.

Barriers And Facilitators To Community-Based Participatory Mental Health Care Research For Racial And Ethnic Minorities.

People with serious mental illnesses, particularly members of racial and ethnic minority groups, are rarely included in prioritizing research topics or developing the tools and measures important for improving their care. Community-based participatory research holds promise toward reducing mental health disparities. However, initiating research partnerships with community stakeholders is challenging and does not always lead to sustainable community health improvements. Using lessons learned from a project to improve understanding of patients' preferences and discrimination in depression and diabetes treatment, we describe barriers and facilitators to initiating a meaningful partnership with disenfranchised groups. Barriers fell within four domains: trepidation of community stakeholders, complex research methods, uncertainty among academic partners, and unclear partnership decision-making protocols. Primary facilitators included the meaningfulness of the research topic to the community, the presence of a well-established community-based organization, academic financial investment, co-learning activities, and flexibility. Successful initiation of these partnerships holds significant potential for addressing health care disparities.