1 of 18

Racial/ethnic differences in medical mistrust among breast cancer patients: �What are the roles of network characteristics?

YAMILÉ MOLINA, MS, MPH, PHD

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR

SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH

CANCER CENTER

CENTER FOR RESEARCH ON WOMEN & GENDER

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO

2 of 18

Topics

  • Background: Substance + Networks
  • Methods: 2-tiered Egocentric Data
  • Results: Tons O’ Tables
  • Discussion: Interpretation, Limitations & Next Steps

3 of 18

Background: Why Care About Medical Mistrust in the Breast Cancer Context?

Medical Mistrust

Anxiety & Depression During and Post Diagnosis

Lack of Genetic Counseling, Screening, & Diagnostic Care; Later Stage at Diagnosis

Inadequate Breast Cancer Treatment Uptake

Lower Perceived Quality of Care & Satisfaction with Care

Bickell et al., 2009; Hillen et al., 2011; Katapodi et al., 2010; Molina et al., 2014; Sheppard et al., 2013; Yang et al., 2011

Historical & Collective Context

Vicarious Experiences with Healthcare

Social Support/Pressure

Personal Experiences

4 of 18

Background: Why Care About Race/Ethnicity in the Breast Cancer Context?

5 of 18

As of 2009; Luckett, 2011; Yanez, 2011

6 of 18

Background: Networks & Medical Mistrust 🡪 Does Race/Ethnicity Matter?

Vicarious Negative Interpersonal Healthcare Experiences

Historical & Collective Traumas & Systemic Exclusion in Medical Settings

Social Support & Assurances to Avoid HealthCare System

Medical Mistrust

Historical & Collective Access to High-Quality Systems

Vicarious Positive Interpersonal Healthcare Experiences

Social Support & Assurances to Trust Healthcare System

Potential Differences in Collective/Network Experiences and Perceptions About the Medical System

(Molina et al., 2015; 2016a)

Personal Positive Interpersonal Healthcare Experiences

Personal Negative Interpersonal Healthcare Experiences

7 of 18

Background: Networks & Medical Mistrust 🡪 Does Race/Ethnicity Matter?

Historical Collective Experiences

Vicarious Interpersonal Healthcare Experiences

Medical Mistrust

Potential Differences in the Perceived Importance of Close, Tight-Knit Communities/Networks

(Molina et al., 2013; 2015a,b; 2016b; 2017a,b)

Personal Interpersonal Healthcare Experiences

Historical Collective Experiences

Vicarious Interpersonal Healthcare Experiences

Personal Interpersonal Healthcare Experiences

8 of 18

Research Question: �Do Relationships Between Network Characteristics & Medical Mistrust Among Breast Cancer Patients Vary by Race/Ethnicity?

9 of 18

Methods: Breast Cancer Care in Chicago Study (PI: Rauscher)

  • Population-based study of patients who:
    • Experienced an in situ/invasive breast cancer diagnosis during 2005-2008
    • Reported race/ethnicity as non-Latina White (NLW), NL Black, or Latina
    • Resided in Chicago at time of diagnosis

  • 989 interested patients (56% of contacted)
    • completed computer-assisted personal interview, including network information
    • identified/recruited up to 5 people within their social networks to complete identical computer-assisted personal interviews

  • 886 participants had complete data and included in analytic sample

10 of 18

Methods: Measures

  • Medical mistrust: 10-item Health Care System Distrust Scale (α= 0.70) administered to patients who reported regular providers and/or providers

  • Network: Network name generator (people who have provided help since diagnosis); name interpreters (race/ethnicity, gender) and name inter-relaters (relationships between people)
    • Composition: for gender and for race/ethnicity
    • Density: summation of existing relationships between people within network divided by the maximum number of possible relationships

  • Other variables:
    • Age
    • Socioeconomic status: household income, education, census-tract level concentrated disadvantage, census-tract level concentrated affluence
    • Healthcare access: regular provider (Yes/No), healthcare insurance (No/Public/Private)
    • Physical exam within past year (Yes/No)

11 of 18

Results: Study Sample Characteristics

**p≤.001; ****p ≤.0001

 

 

NLW (n = 352)

Black (n = 370)

Latina (n = 164)

 

Range

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

Age**

25-78

54.79 (10.88)

56.46 (11.30)

53. 24(11.70)

 

 

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

Socioeconomic status*** - household income  

<$25,000

 

35 (10)

135 (37)

65 (40)

$25-$62,499

 

74 (21)

133 (36)

58 (35)

$62,500+

 

243 (69)

102 (28)

41 (25)

Healthcare Access*** - insurance

No insurance

 

15 (4)

47 (13)

37 (23)

Public

 

14 (4)

98 (27)

38 (23)

Private

 

323 (92)

225 (61)

89 (54)

Physical exam within 1 year

233 (66)

241 (65)

98 (60)

12 of 18

Results: Study Sample Characteristics

 

 

NLW (n = 352)

Black (n = 370)

Latina (n = 164)

 

Range

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

Medical mistrust***

11-57 

20.37 (7.19)

23.05 (7.19)

23.24 (7.15)

Network characteristics

 

 

 

 

Density***

0-0.5

0.42 (0.15)

0.41 (0.16)

0.35 (0.16)

% Same race***

0-1.0

0.90 (0.18)

0.93 (0.16)

0.69 (0.34)

% Same gender**

0-1.0

0.65 (0.17)

0.64 (0.19)

0.58 (0.19)

**p≤.001; ****p ≤.0001

13 of 18

Results: Main Effects of Patient Race/Ethnicity & Networks

1Other variables: network density, age, household income, education, concentrated disadvantage, concentrated advantage, having a regular provider, insurance status, & no physical exam. **p≤.001; ****p ≤.0001

 

 

B1

p-value

Race/Ethnicity

Black (REF: White)

0.13

0.01

Latina (REF: White)

0.10

0.04

Network characteristics

Density

-0.06

0.10

% Same race

0.02

0.54

% Female in network

0.01

0.82

14 of 18

Results: Network x Race/Ethnicity Effects

p-value

Race/Ethnicity x Density

Black x Density

0.57

Latina x Density

0.03

Race/Ethnicity x % Same race

Black x % Same race

0.81

Latina x % Same race

0.76

Other variables in addition to main effects and network variables: age, household income, education, concentrated disadvantage, concentrated advantage, having a regular provider, insurance status, & no physical exam **p≤.001; ****p ≤.0001

15 of 18

Results: Stratified Models

Stratified Models

B

p-value

Density (only NLWs)

-0.01

0.89

Density (only Latinas)

-0.18

0.02

Other variables in addition to main effects and network variables: age, household income, education, concentrated disadvantage, concentrated advantage, having a regular provider, insurance status, no physical exam, type of detection. **p≤.001; ****p ≤.0001

16 of 18

Discussion

  • Preliminary findings
    • Latina breast cancer patients’ social networks appear to be somewhat less dense and more heterogeneous relative to other women’s networks 🡪 maybe due to Chicago dynamics
    • Tighter knit communities appear to be associated with lower medical mistrust among Latinas in particular 🡪 maybe due to cultural emphases and/or interactions with immigrant identity
    • These particular network characteristics may not be as powerful predictors for Black patients’ mistrust 🡪 maybe due to greater influence of socio-contextual factors and/or more complex network processes

  • Limitations:
    • No ‘cut-off’/magnitude guidelines for medical mistrust
    • Sampling/measure administration
    • Name generator focused on post-diagnosis support

    • Ego-report ties
    • Potentially not ‘independent’
    • Relatively ‘old’ data

17 of 18

Next Steps

  • Present this @ INSNA next Friday & Submit Brief Report by Sept 2017
  • BCCC data
    • Characterize if network characteristics are associated with ‘patterns of mistrust’ across the care continuum
    • Incorporate alters’ medical mistrust and networks in models relating to ego medical mistrust
    • Examine the “weight” of ethnic and gender concordance among Latino egos and their alters
  • Related NCI grants awarded/written while SN&H Fellow
    • K01: Testing the effectiveness of a train-the-trainer breast cancer intervention on Latinas’ communication and network structure re: breast cancer relative to an educational intervention
    • R21: Examining how an individual-level intervention may have affected communication and behaviors re: breast cancer among Black breast cancer survivors

18 of 18

Thanks, DNAC SN&H! �(Especially Jake & Tyson & Jim)