Search

Asians are reported to have poorer healthcare experience than non-Hispanic Whites (NHWs), but the sources of the differences are not understood. One explanation is Asian's reluctance to choose extreme responses in survey. We thus sought to compare NHW-Asian differences in responses to healthcare experience surveys when asked to report versus rate their experiences. Patients of an outpatient care system in 2013 to 2014 in the United States were studied. Patient experience surveys were sent after randomly selected clinic visits. Responses from 6 major Asian subgroups and NHWs were included (N = 61,115). The surveys used a combined questionnaire of Clinician and Group Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CG-CAHPS) and Press Ganey surveys. CG-CAHPS questions are framed as "reporting" and Press Ganey questions as "rating" of experiences. We compared the proportion of favorable (or top box) responses to 2 related questions, one from CG-CAHPS and another from Press Ganey, and assessed racial/ethnic differences when using each of the 2 related questions, using a Pearson chi-squared test for independence. All Asian subgroups were less likely to select top box than NHWs for all questions. The Asian-NHW differences in 'rating" questions were larger than the difference in related "reporting" questions. Of those who chose top box to CG-CAHPS questions (e.g., "Yes" on a question asking "Waited < 15 minutes"), their responses to related Press Ganey questions varied widely: 47% to 57% of Asian subgroups versus 67% of NHWs rated wait time as "Very good." The extent of racial/ethnic differences in patient-reported experiences varies based on how questions are framed. The observed poorer experiences by Asians are in part explained by their worse rating of similar objectively measurable experiences.

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is recommended for adults aged 50-75 years, yet screening rates are low, especially among the uninsured. The CDC initiated the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) in 2009 with the goal of increasing CRC screening rates to 80% by 2014. A total of 29 grantees (states and tribal organizations) receive CRCCP funding to (1) screen uninsured adults and (2) promote CRC screening at the population level., Purpose: CRCCP encourages grantees to use one or more of five evidence-based interventions (EBIs) recommended by the Guide to Community Preventive Services. The purpose of the study was to evaluate grantees' EBI use., Methods: A web-based survey was conducted in 2011 measuring grantees' use of CRC screening EBIs and identifying their implementation partners. Data were analyzed in 2012., Results: Twenty-eight grantees (97%) completed the survey. Most respondents (96%) used small media. Fewer used client reminders (75%); reduction of structural barriers (50%); provider reminders (32%); or provider assessment and feedback (50%). Provider-oriented EBIs were rated as harder to implement than client-oriented EBIs. Grantees partnered with several types of organizations to implement EBIs, many with county- or state-wide reach., Conclusions: Almost all grantees implement EBIs to promote CRC screening, but the EBIs that may have the greatest impact with CRC screening are implemented by fewer grantees in the first 2 years of the CRCCP., (© 2013 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. All rights reserved.)