RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Income is a key social determinant of health, yet it is rare for data on income to be routinely collected and integrated with electronic health records. AIM: To examine response bias and evaluate patient perspectives of being asked about income in primary care. DESIGN & SETTING: Mixed-methods study in a large, multi-site primary care organisation in Toronto, Canada, where patients are asked about income in a routinely administered sociodemographic survey. METHOD: Data were examined from the electronic health records of patients who answered at least one question on the survey between December 2013 and March 2016 (n = 14 247). The study compared those who responded to the income question with non-responders. Structured interviews with 27 patients were also conducted. RESULTS: A total of 10 441 (73%) patients responded to both parts of the income question: 'What was your total family income before taxes last year?' and 'How many people does your income support?'. Female patients, ethnic minorities, caregivers of young children, and older people were less likely to respond. From interviews, many patients were comfortable answering the income question, particularly if they understood the connection between income and health, and believed the data would be used to improve care. Several patients found it difficult to estimate their income or felt the options did not reflect fluctuating financial circumstances. CONCLUSION: Many patients will provide data on income in the context of a survey in primary care, but accurately estimating income can be challenging. Future research should compare self-reported income to perceived financial strain. Data on income linked to health records can help identify health inequities and help target anti-poverty interventions.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: People with disabilities experience barriers to receiving healthcare and often have worse health outcomes, but data on disability is rarely routinely collected in a standardized way. OBJECTIVE: This study examined how patients responded to being asked about disabilities as part of a routine, self-administered sociodemographic survey. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods study in a multi-site primary care organization. We compared the characteristics of people who responded to a question about disabilities to those who did not respond using logistic regression. We also compared survey responses to data available in medical charts. In-depth interviews were conducted with a sample of patients following survey completion. RESULTS: Over 28 months, 15,221 patients were offered the survey and 14,247 (93.6%) responded to at least one question. Of these, 11,275 (79.1%) patients answered the question about disabilities. Older patients, patients who rented their home, and non-White patients were less likely to respond to the question. When comparing survey responses to data from medical charts we identified discrepancies. Patients interviewed reported they had difficulty judging what constituted a disability. Stigma related to mental illness and substance use led them to avoid disclosing those conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Directly asking patients whether they have a disability may be challenging given confusion about what constitutes a disability and stigma associated with certain disabilities. Future research should examine whether asking about barriers faced in accessing health services could adequately identify patients with disabilities and also be used to identify tangible actions an organization could take to lower barriers to care.
