Citations

ABSTRACT Purpose This study assesses the association between colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and a validated, housing-based measure of individual-level socioeconomic status (SES, called HOUSES hereafter) within rural communities and determines whether HOUSES-integrated geospatial analysis can be used to tailor interventions. Methods We used CRC screening data from a subset of Mayo Clinic Midwest patients living in cities without ready access to routine care in the Mayo Clinic Health System in 2019 to represent rural communities. At the individual level, we assessed the association between CRC screening rates and the HOUSES index, adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, comorbidity, distance from home address to clinic, and area deprivation index, using a multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression model. Additionally, we conducted geospatial analysis to examine the correlation between hotspots of 1) lower CRC screening rates and 2) lower SES of the subject population (HOUSES quartile 1). Findings Among 34,489 individuals (median age 64.0 years, 52.4% female), those with the lowest SES (HOUSES Q1) had 37% lower odds of being CRC screening adherent than those with the highest SES (HOUSES Q4) (adj. OR [95% CI]: 0.63 [0.58-0.69]). In the 14 identified HOUSES Q1 hotspots, there was a significant correlation in counts of HOUSES Q1 and low CRC screening (correlation coefficient=0.81). Conclusion Lower SES was significantly associated with lower CRC screening among rural populations. HOUSES-enabled geospatial analysis identified geographic hotspots with lower CRC screening rates for targeted interventions to address disparities in CRC screening in rural communities. HOUSES may be a useful digital tool for cancer preventive care and research.

ABSTRACT Importance Rural-urban disparities in chronic disease prevalence are well established; however, the extent to which individual-level socioeconomic status (SES) contributes to these disparities remains unclear. Objective To examine the associations of rurality and SES with the prevalence of five most burdensome chronic diseases among adults. Design We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study of adults across 27 Upper Midwest counties using the Expanded Rochester Epidemiology Project (E-REP) medical record data linkage system to evaluate associations between rurality, SES and chronic disease prevalence. Prevalence of clinically diagnosed asthma, diabetes, hypertension, coronary heart disease, and mood disorders was identified from International Classification of Diseases ICD9/10 codes over a five-year period (2014-2019). Setting Population based Participants Adults over 18 years residing in the 27 E-REP counties, excluding those missing rural-urban residence status. Exposure HOUSES index, an individual-level measure of SES, served as the primary measure, while rurality based on Rural Urban Commuting Area (RUCA) codes 4-10 was the secondary measure. Main Outcome Prevalence of the five clinically diagnosed chronic diseases was identified using ICD9/10 codes from 2014–2019. Mixed effect logistic regression models were used and adjusted for demographics and general medical examination receipt, to assess rural-urban and SES differences for prevalence of each chronic disease. Results Among 455,802 adults with available HOUSES index, 42.8% lived in rural areas, 53.8% were female and 87.4% were non-Hispanic White. In the unadjusted analysis, rural and urban populations showed comparable asthma and CHD prevalence, while mood disorders, hypertension, and diabetes were more common in urban areas. After adjusting for demographic factors and healthcare utilization, rural-urban differences were no longer statistically significant, whereas SES remained strongly associated with all diseases in a dose response manner (e.g., adjusted Odds Ratio for hypertension (ref: HOUSES index Q4): 1.14, 1.27, and 1.42 for HOUSES index Q3, Q2, and Q1, respectively). Conclusions and Relevance Individual-level SES measured by the HOUSES index, was more strongly associated with chronic disease prevalence than rurality, supporting its integration into population health assessment and risk stratification.

Objectives: To assess how social risk factors and socioeconomic status (SES) affect health care costs at a large, integrated health system of 45 clinics in Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed administrative patient cost data from January 1 through December 31, 2022. Social risk factors (lack of financial resources, food insecurity, intimate partner violence, unmet transportation needs, and housing instability) were determined with patient questionnaires. Cost z -scores were compared across all risk-factor quartiles. We used a housing-based measure to objectively determine SES. Results: We analyzed data from 410 624 patients empaneled with 689 family medicine clinicians. Self-reported risk factor data were incomplete for 219 321 patients. Costs were higher for those with higher social risk (mean cost z -score: high risk = 0.38, low risk = 0.11; P < .001). In addition, higher costs were associated with increasing age, greater medical complexity (higher Adjusted Clinical Group scores), White race, and lack of financial resources. Although we observed geographic variations in cost, urban and rural locations did not have significant cost differences. Costs were similar across all quartiles of SES, and the absolute difference in cost z -scores between the highest and lowest SES quartiles was only 0.04. The multivariate analysis, which adjusted for age, medical complexity, race, sex, and objective SES, showed that these specific associations were substantially decreased and no longer significantly associated with mean cost z -scores. Conclusions: Patient-reported social risk factors were significantly associated with increased cost of care in a large, multispecialty health system in the midwestern US. These associations were decreased in the multivariate analysis. Results should be interpreted cautiously for readers outside the midwestern US, given potential responder bias and the racial homogeneity (92% White) of the study cohort.

Introduction/Objectives: Little is known about the prevalence of patient-reported social risk factors and the use of the HOUSES Index, a simple, reliable method of assessing socioeconomic status (SES) based on publicly available housing data, in a predominantly rural, primary care population. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of adult patients paneled to family medicine clinicians in a US Midwest health system as of December 31, 2022. Patients’ listed address determined HOUSES Index as quartile rank (Q1 lowest SES) and rural/urban status. Social risk data including housing, food, transportation, finances, and violence were collected from health record questionnaires. A mixed effect model was used to assess associations between social risk, HOUSES Index, and rurality. Results: Of the 352 355 patients included, rural patients were more likely than urban patients to report all social risk factors and had lower SES as measured by HOUSES quartiles. In the mixed effects analysis, HOUSES quartile was independently predictive of reporting an at-risk social risk factor (Q1 vs Q4 OR = 2.27, 95% CI = 2.19-2.37), but rurality was not (OR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.97-1.07) after adjusting for HOUSES. Conclusions: The increased prevalence of social risk factors among rural residents is largely explained by individual SES measured by HOUSES Index.

Toxins from ingested water can significantly affect overall physical health in children and adults. In the United States, domestic water wells are not commonly tested for any heavy metal contaminants. It is well-known that chronic arsenic ingestion from water is linked to serious health effects. We surveyed patients at our academic institution via emailed questionnaires in 2023 to determine whether those with children living at home reported different patterns of behavior around well water testing as compared to those without. Survey data were collected from 8994 respondents in the U.S. Midwest who reported using residential well water. Results were used to evaluate the influence of children in the home on testing behaviors, and secondarily, whether parental demographics affected testing frequency. Respondents with children at home did not report increased testing frequency compared to those without. In parents who did report testing, having more children, being younger, and living in Wisconsin were associated with an increased frequency. Parental gender, race, and ethnicity did not correlate with testing behaviors. A total of 70% of respondents did not feel concerned about their water safety and 85% were not concerned about arsenic specifically in their water. Increased risk of toxicity to children from arsenic does not appear to influence reported well water testing behavior among parents.

Background: Arsenic is a well-known toxin which may contaminate household water. It is harmful when ingested over prolonged periods of time. As a result, public health experts recommend that water should be screened and treated to prevent arsenic ingestion. In the United States, the responsibility of testing and treatment of private wells falls on homeowners. Despite recommendations for routine screening, this is rarely done. Objectives: To assess the prevalence of well water use in a Midwestern patient population, how patients and clinicians perceive the risks of arsenic in well water, and whether additional resources on well water testing are desired. These findings will be used to influence tools for clinicians regarding symptom and examination findings of chronic arsenic exposure and potentiate the distribution of informational resources on well water testing. Methods: Surveys were sent via email to all actively practicing primary care clinicians at the Mayo Clinic in the United States Midwest, and all active adult patients at the Mayo Clinic in the same region. Our team analyzed survey data to determine whether both patients and clinicians are aware of the health effects of chronic arsenic toxicity from well water, the need for routine well water testing and whether each group wants more information on the associated risks. Results: Both patients and primary care clinicians worry about arsenic exposure. Patients with well water are concerned about their water safety yet feel uninformed about testing options. Clinicians do not know how prevalent well water use is among their patients, feel uninformed about the chronic risks of arsenic exposure and the physical examination associated with it. Both groups unanimously want more information on testing options. Conclusions: Our findings show a significant reliance on well water use in the American Midwest, and unanimous support for the need for further well water testing information and resources for patients and their clinicians.