Characterizing disparities in receipt of palliative care for Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders with metastatic cancer in the United States.
Palliative care plays essential roles in cancer care. However, differences in receipt among individuals identifying as Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Other Pacific Islanders (AA&NHPI) with cancer are not well-characterized, especially when these diverse groups are disaggregated. We characterized disparities in receipt of palliative care among AA&NHPI patients with AJCC Stage IV prostate, breast, or lung cancer.
We performed multivariable logistic regressions were performed in this retrospective cohort analysis, using deidentified data from the National Cancer Database (NCDB) of patients diagnosed with AJCC analytic group stage IV breast, lung, or prostate cancer (2004-2018) who were White or of Asian Indian/Pakistani, Chinese, Filipino, Hawaiian, Hmong, Japanese, Kampuchean, Korean, Laotian, Other Pacific Islander, Thai, or Vietnamese descent. We conducted multivariable logistic regression analyses in a retrospective cohort study using deidentified data from the National Cancer Database (NCDB). The study included patients diagnosed with AJCC analytic group Stage IV breast, lung, or prostate cancer between 2004 and 2018, who were White or identified as Asian Indian/Pakistani, Chinese, Filipino, Hawaiian, Hmong, Japanese, Kampuchean, Korean, Laotian, Other Pacific Islander, Thai, or Vietnamese descent. Adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals of receiving palliative care were measured when comparing White vs. AA&NHPI patients as one cohort and White vs. disaggregated AA&NHPI patients, adjusting for clinical, socioeconomic, and demographic covariates.
Among 775,289 individuals diagnosed with cancer (median age: 68 years), no significant differences in palliative care receipt were observed between White patients and aggregated AA&NHPI patients among patients with prostate, breast, or lung cancer. However, disaggregated analyses revealed reduced palliative care receipt for breast cancer patients of Asian Indian/Pakistani descent (AOR 0.75, 95% CI, 0.60-0.94, P = 0.011) and for lung cancer patients of Chinese, Vietnamese, Thai, and Asian Indian/Pakistani descent compared to White patients (Chinese AOR 0.88, [0.81-0.94], P = 0.001; Vietnamese AOR 0.89, [0.80 to 0.99], P = 0.032; Thai AOR 0.64, [0.44-0.92], P = 0.016; Asian Indian/Pakistani AOR 0.83, [0.74-0.93], P = 0.001). Palliative care was greater for patients of Japanese and Hawaiian descent with prostate cancer (Japanese AOR 1.92, [1.32-2.75], P = 0.001; Hawaiian AOR 2.09, [1.20-3.66], P = 0.009), breast cancer (Japanese AOR 1.72, [1.21-2.43], P = 0.001; Hawaiian AOR 1.70, [1.08-2.67], P = 0.021), and lung cancer (Japanese AOR 1.92, [1.70-2.17], P < 0.001; Hawaiian AOR 2.95, [2.5-3.5], P < 0.001), as well as patients of Other Pacific Islander descent with lung cancer (AOR 1.62, [1.34-1.96], P < 0.001).
Our findings demonstrate disparities in receipt of palliative care upon disaggregation of diverse AA&NHPI groups, the need for disaggregated research and targeted interventions that address the unique cultural, socioeconomic, and healthcare system barriers to palliative care receipt.
Kohli K
，Kohli M
，Jain B
，Swami N
，Ranganathan S
，Chino F
，Iyengar P
，Yerramilli D
，Dee EC
... -
《-》
Prevention of self-harm and suicide in young people up to the age of 25 in education settings.
In 2016, globally, suicide was the second leading cause of death amongst those aged 15 to 29 years. Self-harm is increasingly common among young people in many countries, particularly among women and girls. The risk of suicide is elevated 30-fold in the year following hospital presentation for self-harm, and those with suicidal ideation have double the risk of suicide compared with the general population. Self-harm and suicide in young people are significant public health issues that cause distress for young people, their peers, and family, and lead to substantial healthcare costs. Educational settings are widely acknowledged as a logical and appropriate place to provide prevention and treatment. A comprehensive, high-quality systematic review of self-harm and suicide prevention programmes in all education settings is thus urgently required. This will support evidence-informed decision making to facilitate rational investment in prevention efforts in educational settings. Suicide and self-harm are distressing, and we acknowledge that the content of this review is sensitive as the data outlined below represents the lived and living experience of suicidal distress for individuals and their caregivers.
To assess the effects of interventions delivered in educational settings to prevent or address self-harm and suicidal ideation in young people (up to the age of 25) and examine whether the relative effects on self-harm and suicide are modified by education setting.
We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Specialised Register, CENTRAL, The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO, ERIC, Web of Science Social Science Citation Index, EBSCO host Australian Education Index, British Education Index, Educational Research Abstracts to 28 April 2023.
We included trials where the primary aim was to evaluate an intervention specifically designed to reduce self-harm or prevent suicide in an education setting. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs, cross-over trials and quasi-randomised trials were eligible for inclusion. Primary outcomes were self-harm postintervention and acceptability; secondary outcomes included suicidal ideation, hopelessness, and two outcomes co-designed with young people: better or more coping skills, and a safe environment, with more acceptance and understanding.
We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (ORs) and continuous data as standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We conducted random-effects meta-analyses and assessed certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. For co-designed outcomes, we used vote counting based on the direction of effect, as there is a huge variation in the data and the effect measure used in the included studies.
We included 51 trials involving 36,414 participants (minimum 23; maximum 11,100). Twenty-seven studies were conducted in secondary schools, one in middle school, one in primary school, 19 in universities, one in medical school, and one across education and community settings. Eighteen trials investigated universal interventions, 11 of which provided data for at least one meta-analysis, but no trials provided data for self-harm postintervention. Evidence on the acceptability of universal interventions is of very low certainty, and indicates little or no difference between groups (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.67; 9 studies, 8528 participants). Low-certainty evidence showed little to no effect on suicidal ideation (SMD -0.02, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.20; 4 studies, 379 participants) nor on hopelessness (MD -0.01, 95% CI -1.98 to 1.96; 1 trial, 121 participants). Fifteen trials investigated selective interventions, eight of which provided data for at least one meta-analysis, but only one trial provided data for self-harm postintervention. Low-certainty evidence indicates that selective interventions may reduce self-harm postintervention slightly (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.06 to 2.43; 1 trial, 148 participants). While no trial provided data for hopelessness, little to no effect was found on acceptability (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.5 to 2.0; 6 studies, 10,208 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or suicidal ideation (SMD 0.04, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.43; 2 studies, 102 participants; low-certainty evidence). Seventeen trials investigated indicated interventions, 14 of which provided data for at least one meta-analysis, but only four trials provided data for self-harm postintervention and two reported no events in both groups. Low-certainty evidence suggests that indicated interventions may slightly reduce self-harm postintervention (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.76; 2 studies, 76 participants). There is also low-certainty evidence indicating that these interventions may decrease the odds of non-suicidal self-injury (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.79; 2 studies, 89 participants). Evidence of a slight decrease in acceptability in the intervention group is of low certainty (OR 1.44, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.42; 10 studies, 641 participants). Low-certainty evidence shows that indicated interventions may slightly reduce suicidal ideation (SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.55 to -0.10; 10 studies, 685 participants) and may result in little to no difference in hopelessness postintervention (SMD -0.27, 95% CI -0.55 to 0.01; 6 studies, 455 participants). There were mixed findings regarding the effect of suicide prevention interventions on a range of constructs relevant to coping skills and safe environment. None of the trials, however, measured the impact of improvements in these constructs on self-harm or suicidal ideation.
While this review provides an update on the evidence about interventions targeting self-harm and suicide prevention in education settings, there remains significant uncertainty about the impact of these interventions. There are some promising findings but large replication studies are needed, as are studies that examine the combination of different intervention approaches, and can be delivered in a safe environment and implemented over a long period of time. Further research is required to understand and measure outcomes that are meaningful to young people with lived experience, as they want coping skills and safety of the environment in which they conduct their everyday lives to be measured as key outcomes in future trials.
Sharma V
，Marshall D
，Fortune S
，Prescott AE
，Boggiss A
，Macleod E
，Mitchell C
，Clarke A
，Robinson J
，Witt KG
，Hawton K
，Hetrick SE
... -
《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》
ResearchGate
(全网免费下载)
钛学术
(全网免费下载)
