Do Discrimination and Negative Interactions with Family Explain the Relationship between Interracial Relationship Status and Mental Disorder?

Using the stress process model, the authors investigate whether individuals in interracial relationships experience greater risk for past-year mood and anxiety disorder compared with their same-race relationship counterparts. The authors also assess interracial relationship status differences in external stressors (i.e., discrimination and negative interactions with family) and whether stress exposure explains mental disorder differences between individuals in interracial versus same-race romantic partnerships. Data are from the National Survey of American Life (2001-2003). Results show that individuals in interracial relationships are at greater risk for anxiety disorder (but not mood disorder) relative to those in same-race relationships. Interracially partnered individuals also report more discrimination from the public and greater negative interactions with family. External stressors partially explain the higher risk for anxiety disorder among individuals in interracial partnerships. This study addresses a void in the literature on discrimination, family relationships, and health for the growing population of individuals in interracial unions.

Racial Differences in Cumulative Disadvantage Among Women and Its Relation to Health: Development and Preliminary Validation of the Cumulative Stress Inventory of Women's Experiences.

Background: Cumulative disadvantage (CD) is a measure of accumulated social, economic, and person-related stressors due to unequal access to resources and opportunities, which increases a person's biological risk for disease. The purpose of this research was to develop an instrument tailored to women's experiences that had intervention and translational potential. In addition, we explored whether CD contributed to racial health disparities among black and white women. Methods: In-depth life course interviews were used to assess stressful experiences of 15 black and 15 white women. Using information from the interviews, we developed the Cumulative Stress Inventory of Women's Experiences (CSI-WE) as a quantitative instrument to measure stressful life experiences from childhood to adulthood. The CSI-WE was then administered to the original 30 women for validation and feedback. Results: Qualitative and quantitative assessments were highly correlated, which suggested that the CSI-WE reliably captured the experiences of the interviewed women. Black participants reported significantly higher numbers of childhood and adult stressors, more acute adulthood and lifetime stressors, and worse adult physical self-rated health. Conclusions: This study supports the preliminary validity of an instrument that once fully validated may be used in future studies to elucidate the experiences of CD among black and white women and examines how these experiences relate to perceived and objective health status.

"Are you accepting new patients?" A pilot field experiment on telephone-based gatekeeping and Black patients' access to pediatric care.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To determine whether name and accent cues that the caller is Black shape physician offices' responses to telephone-based requests for well-child visits. METHOD AND DATA: In this pilot study, we employed a quasi-experimental audit design and examined a stratified national sample of pediatric and family practice offices. Our final data include information from 205 audits (410 completed phone calls). Qualitative data were blind-coded into binary variables. Our case-control comparisons using McNemar's tests focused on acceptance of patients, withholding information, shaping conversations, and misattributions. FINDINGS: Compared to the control group, "Black" auditors were less likely to be told an office was accepting new patients and were more likely to experience both withholding behaviors and misattributions about public insurance. The strength of associations varied according to whether the cue was based on name or accent. Additionally, the likelihood and ways office personnel communicated that they were not accepting patients varied by region. CONCLUSIONS: Linguistic profiling over the telephone is an aspect of structural racism that should be further studied and perhaps integrated into efforts to promote equitable access to care. Future research should look reactions to both name and accent, taking practice characteristics and regional differences into consideration.

Understanding Diabetes-Related Distress Characteristics and Psychosocial Support Preferences of Urban African American Adults Living With Type 2 Diabetes: A Mixed-Methods Study.

Purpose The purpose of this study is to understand diabetes-related distress (DRD) characteristics and identify psychosocial support preferences of urban African American adults living with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Methods A 2-phase, mixed-methods sequential explanatory study design was used to gather data. In phase 1, a purposive sample of participants (N = 155) was recruited and asked to complete a written survey. The Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS17) was used to assess DRD, including subscales-emotional burden (EB), regimen distress (RD), interpersonal distress (ID), and physician distress (PD). In phase 2, a subset of phase 1 participants (N = 23) volunteered to attend 1 of 4 gender-stratified follow-up focus groups to contextualize the quantitative survey results. Results Survey findings indicate that on average, participants had moderate levels of DRD (aggregate), RD, and EB but had low ID and PD. During follow-up focus groups, participants described RD and EB as their primary distress types and emphasized that clinicians should prioritize the mental health aspects of T2DM similarly to its physical aspects. Participants expressed a desire for culturally appropriate peer support groups as a psychosocial support resource for distress coping and specifically requested the development of gender-stratified groups and groups for young adults. Conclusions Results support the need to screen for and address diabetes-related distress among African American patients with T2DM. Findings also inform the development of culturally appropriate psychosocial support resources to facilitate diabetes-related distress coping.

'Because I Don't know': uncertainty and ambiguity in closed-ended reports of perceived discrimination in US health care.

Objective Surveys often ask respondents to assess discrimination in health care. Yet, patients' responses to one type of widely used measure of discrimination (single-item, personally mediated) tend to reveal prevalence rates lower than observational studies would suggest. This study examines the meaning behind respondents' closed-ended self-reports on this specific type of measure, paying special attention to the frameworks and references used within the medical setting. Design Twenty-nine respondents participated in this study. They were asked the widely used question: 'Within the past 12 months, when seeking health care do you feel your experiences were worse than, the same as, or better than people of other races?' We then conducted qualitative interviews focusing on their chosen response and past experiences. Descriptive analyses focus on both the quantitative and qualitative data, including a comparison of conveyed perceived discrimination according to the different sources of data. Results To identify discrimination, respondents drew upon observations of dynamics in the waiting room or the health providers' communication style. Our respondents were frequently ambivalent and uncertain about how their personal treatment in health care compared to people of other races. When participants were unable to make observable comparisons, they tended to assume equal treatment and report 'same as' in the close-ended reports. Conclusion Respondents' responses to single-item, closed-ended questions may be influenced by characteristics specific to the health care realm. An emphasis on privacy and assumptions about the health care field (both authority and benevolence of providers) may limit opportunities for comparison and result in assumptions of racial parity in treatment.