English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This article compared conceptual and empirical strengths of alternative methods for estimating racial disparities using non-linear models of health care access. Three methods were presented (propensity score, rank and replace, and a combined method) that adjust for health status while allowing SES variables to mediate the relationship between race and access to care. Applying these methods to a nationally representative sample of blacks and non-Hispanic whites surveyed in the 2003 and 2004 Medical Expenditure Panel Surveys (MEPS), we assessed the concordance of each of these methods with the Institute of Medicine (IOM) definition of racial disparities, and empirically compared the methods' predicted disparity estimates, the variance of the estimates, and the sensitivity of the estimates to limitations of available data. The rank and replace and combined methods (but not the propensity score method) are concordant with the IOM definition of racial disparities in that each creates a comparison group with the appropriate marginal distributions of health status and SES variables. Predicted disparities and prediction variances were similar for the rank and replace and combined methods, but the rank and replace method was sensitive to limitations on SES information. For all methods, limiting health status information significantly reduced estimates of disparities compared to a more comprehensive dataset. We conclude that the two IOM-concordant methods were similar enough that either could be considered in disparity predictions. In datasets with limited SES information, the combined method is the better choice.

Adjusting for health status in non-linear models of health care disparities