Trends in perinatal and infant health disparities between rural American Indians and Alaska natives and rural Whites.

OBJECTIVES: We examined disparities in perinatal care, birth outcomes, and infant health between rural American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) persons and rural Whites over time. METHODS: We compared perinatal and infant health measures for 217 064 rural AIAN births and 5 032 533 rural non-Hispanic White births. RESULTS: Among American Indians and Alaska Natives, unadjusted rates of inadequate prenatal care (1985-1987, 36.3%; 1995-1997, 26.3%) and postneonatal death (1985-1987, 7.1 per 1000; 1995-1997, 4.8 per 1000) improved significantly. However, disparities between American Indians and Alaska Natives and Whites in adjusted odds ratios (AORs) of postneonatal death (1985-1987, AOR = 1.55; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.41, 1.71; 1995-1997, AOR = 1.46; 95% CI = 1.31, 1.64) and adjusted risk ratios (ARRs) of inadequate prenatal care (1985-1987, ARR = 1.67; 95% CI = 1.65, 1.69; 1995-1997, ARR = 1.84; 95% CI = 1.81, 1.87) persisted. CONCLUSIONS: Despite significant decreases in inadequate prenatal care and postneonatal death among American Indians and Alaska Natives, additional measures are needed to close persistent health gaps for this group.

Access to specialty health care for rural American Indians in two states.

CONTEXT: The Indian Health Service (IHS), whose per capita expenditure for American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) health services is about half that of the US civilian population, is the only source of health care funding for many rural AI/ANs. Specialty services, largely funded through contracts with outside practitioners, may be limited by low IHS funding levels. PURPOSE: To examine specialty service access among rural Indian populations in two states. METHODS: A 31-item mail survey addressing perceived access to specialty physicians, barriers to access, and access to non-physician clinical services was sent to 106 primary care providers in rural Indian health clinics in Montana and New Mexico (overall response rate 60.4%) and 95 primary care providers in rural non-Indian clinics within 25 miles of the Indian clinics (overall response rate 57.9%). FINDINGS: Substantial proportions of rural Indian clinic providers in both states reported fair or poor non-emergent specialty service access for their patients. Montana's rural Indian clinic providers reported poorer patient access to specialty care than rural non-Indian clinic providers, while New Mexico's rural Indian and non-Indian providers reported comparable access. Indian clinic providers in both states most frequently cited financial barriers to specialty care. Indian clinic providers reported better access to most non-physician services than non-Indian clinic providers. CONCLUSIONS: Reported limitations in specialty care access for rural Indian clinic patients appear to be influenced by financial constraints. Health care systems factors may play a role in perceived differences in specialty access between rural Indian and non-Indian clinic patients.

American Indians and Alaska Natives: how do they find their path to medical school?

BACKGROUND: American Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/ANs) remain underrepresented in the medical profession. This study sought to understand the supports and barriers that AI/AN students encountered on their path to successful medical school entry. METHOD: The research team analyzed qualitative semistructured, one-on-one, confidential interviews with 10 AI/AN medical students to identify salient support and barrier themes. RESULTS: Supports and barriers clustered in eight categories: educational experiences, competing career options and priorities, health care experiences, financial factors, cultural connections, family and friends, spirituality, and discrimination. Some of the most notable findings of this study include the following: (1) students reported financial barriers severe enough to constrain participation in the medical school application process, and (2) spirituality played an important role as students pursued a medical career. CONCLUSION: Promoting AI/AN participation in medical careers can be facilitated with strategies appropriate to the academic, financial, and cultural needs of AI/AN students.