Beebe, Timothy J.

Objective There exists a paucity of work in the development and testing of theoretical models specific to childhood health disparities even though they have been linked to the prevalence of adult health disparities including high rates of chronic disease. We conducted a systematic review and thematic analysis of existing models of health disparities specific to children to inform development of a unified conceptual framework. Methods We systematically reviewed articles reporting theoretical or explanatory models of disparities on a range of outcomes related to child health. We searched Ovid Medline In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus (database inception to 9 July 2015). A metanarrative approach guided the analysis process. Results A total of 48 studies presenting 48 models were included. This systematic review found multiple models but no consensus on one approach. However, we did discover a fair amount of overlap, such that the 48 models reviewed converged into the unified conceptual framework. The majority of models included factors in three domains: individual characteristics and behaviours (88%), healthcare providers and systems (63%), and environment/community (56%), . Only 38% of models included factors in the health and public policies domain. Conclusions A disease-agnostic unified conceptual framework may inform integration of existing knowledge of child health disparities and guide future research. This multilevel framework can focus attention among clinical, basic and social science research on the relationships between policy, social factors, health systems and the physical environment that impact children's health outcomes.

Objective To compare response rate and nonresponse bias across two mixed‐mode survey designs and two single‐mode designs. Data Sources This experiment was embedded in a clinician survey of knowledge and attitudes regarding HPV vaccination ( n = 275). Study Design Clinicians were randomly assigned one of two mixed‐mode (mail/web or web/mail) or single‐mode designs (mail‐only/web‐only). Differences in response rate and nonresponse bias were assessed. Principal Findings Using a multiple‐contact protocol increased response, and sending a web survey first provided the more rapid response. Overall, the mixed‐mode survey designs generated final response rates approximately 10 percentage points higher than their single‐mode counterparts, although only the final response differences between the mail‐only and web/mail conditions attained statistical significance (32.1 percent vs. 48 percent, respectively; p = .005). Observed differences did not result in nonresponse bias. Conclusions Results support mixing modes of survey administration and web‐based data collection in a multiple contact survey data collection protocol.

Surveys are an important tool for assessing physician and nursing professionals’ practice patterns and guideline adherence. Obtaining quality survey data consisting of low item and unit nonresponse remains a persistent challenge in these populations. We tested the relative impact of two envelope types (padded vs. priority mail) on unit and item nonresponse in a survey of Minnesota health care workers. Respondents were randomized to receive a survey in one of two envelope types: a padded 8.5′′ × 11′′ envelope or a similarly sized priority mail envelope. After the first mailing, the response rate was 53.9% and did not differ across envelope conditions. Females and RNs were more likely to respond to the priority envelope than the padded envelope, but this finding did not hold in multivariate analysis. There was no difference in item nonresponse across the two envelope conditions. It may be that our two approaches were not enough to permeate the semi-porous membrane of gatekeeping that has been posited as a driver of low physician survey response rates relative to those observed in the general population. Nonetheless, our findings suggest that packaging may matter for some populations and not others.

Objective To assess recommendations for prostate‐specific antigen ( PSA ) screening in a national survey of radiation oncologists and urologists following the recent USA P reventive S ervices T ask F orce ( USPSTF ) grade D recommendation. Methods A random sample of 1366 radiation oncologists and urologists were identified from the A merican M edical A ssociation P hysician M asterfile. From N ovember 2011 to A pril 2012, a mail survey was sent to query PSA screening recommendations for men at average risk of prostate cancer for the following age groups: 40–49, 50–59, 60–69, 70–74, 75–79 and ≥80 years. Multivariable logistic regression was used to test for differences in PSA ‐based screening recommendations by physician characteristics. Results Response rates were similar at 52% for radiation oncologists and urologists ( P = 0.92). Overall, 51.5% of respondents recommended PSA ‐based screening for men aged 40–49 years, while nearly all endorsed it for those aged 50–74 years (96.1% for 50–59, 97.3% for 60–69, and 87.7% for 70–74 years). However, screening recommendations decreased to 43.9% and 12.8% for men aged 75–79 and ≥80 years, respectively. On multivariable analysis, urologists were more likely to recommend screening for men aged 40–49 (odds ratio [ OR ] 3.09; P < 0.001) and 50–59 years ( OR 3.81; P = 0.01), but less likely for men aged 75–79 ( OR 0.66; P = 0.01) and ≥80 years ( OR 0.45; P = 0.002) compared with radiation oncologists. Conclusion While radiation oncologists and urologists recommended PSA screening for men aged 50–69 years, there was less agreement about screening for younger (40–49 years old) and older (≥70 years) men at average risk for prostate cancer.

Surveys of physicians are an important tool to assess opinions and self-reported behaviors of this policy-relevant population. However, this population is notoriously difficult to survey and plagued with low and falling response rates. In order to evaluate the potential import of response rate, we examine the presence of nonresponse bias in a survey of physicians providing diabetes care that achieved a 36% response rate. Unlike other studies examining differences in individual characteristics for responding and nonresponding physicians, we also assess differences with respect to aggregate patient demographic, clinical, and behavioral characteristics. We are unable to demonstrate nonresponse bias, even with what could be construed as a relative low response rate. Nonetheless as the threat of nonresponse bias can never be completely assuaged, we believe that it should be monitored as a matter of course in physician surveys and offer a new dimension by which it can be evaluated.

ObjectiveTo assess nonresponse bias in a mixed‐mode general population health survey.Data SourcesSecondary analysis of linked survey sample frame and administrative data, including demographic and health‐related information.Study DesignThe survey was administered by mail with telephone follow‐up to nonrespondents after two mailings. To determine whether an additional mail contact or mode switch reduced nonresponse bias, we compared all respondents (N = 3,437) to respondents from each mailing and telephone respondents to the sample frame (N = 6,716).Principal FindingsSwitching modes did not minimize the under‐representation of younger people, nonwhites, those with congestive heart failure, high users of office‐based services, and low‐utilizers of the emergency room but did reduce the over‐representation of older adults.ConclusionsMultiple contact and mixed‐mode surveys may increase response rates, but they do not necessarily reduce nonresponse bias.

This study examined how information obtained from an adolescent screening instrument administered in a medical clinic is affected by the method of data collection and knowledge that a summary report would be given to the provider. The Adolescent Health Review (AHR) was administered to 610 adolescent patients randomly assigned to 1 of 3 conditions to test the effect of mode of administration (paper vs. computer) and disclosure of results to the provider versus only to researchers (using the computer version). The AHR obtained information on mental health, sexual experiences, and use of psychoactive substances. Response patterns varied by mode of administration, with the paper version generally eliciting higher, and arguably more accurate, rates of disclosure. Knowing that the results would be provided to the doctor further attenuated disclosure. Results suggest that the paper version's higher rates of reporting must be weighed against the computer version's benefits of automated scoring and reporting.