Medical University of South Carolina, Division of General Pediatrics,135 Rutledge Ave, PO Box 250561, Charleston, SC 29425, USA.
Pediatrics. 2010 Mar;125(3):460-7. doi: 10.1542/peds.2008-3490. Epub 2010 Feb 22.
To assess whether underrepresented minority (URM) pediatricians serve minority and/or publicly insured or uninsured children to a greater degree than non-URM pediatricians, and to evaluate trends in these relationships.
Respondents to American Academy of Pediatrics surveys in 1993, 2000, and 2007, provided their race/ethnicity, practice locations, and estimated race/ethnicity and insurance sources of their patient panels. We classified pediatricians by race/ethnicity as either URM (black, Hispanic, Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, or American Indian/Alaskan Native) or non-URM (white, non-Hispanic/Latino, Asian, or other). We compared the average percentages of minority individuals (excluding Asians) in the patient panels of URM and non-URM pediatricians, and compared the average percentages of publicly insured (includes TRICARE) or uninsured patients.
Response rates were >50% for all surveys. There were 1003 (10.2% URM) postresidency respondents in 1993, 707 (11.8% URM) in 2000, and 900 (11.1% URM) in 2007. In all 3 surveys, the average percentage of minority children in URM pediatricians' patient panels was higher than for non-URM pediatricians by approximately 20 percentage points (all P < .001). The differences in the percentages of patients who were either publicly insured or uninsured widened over the study period, from 46% in URM pediatric practices versus 38.8% in non-URM practices in 1993 to 59.7% vs 40.7%, respectively, in 2007 (P < .001). In multivariable analyses, URM pediatricians' patient panels had a higher mean percentage of minorities (15.2 percentage points greater; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 12.1-18.4) and a higher mean percentage of publicly insured and uninsured patients (10.9 percentage points greater; 95% CI: 6.7-15.4) compared with non-URM pediatricians' patient panels.
Over the last 14 years, URM pediatricians were more likely than their non-URM peers to care for minority children and publicly insured or uninsured patients. This relationship has not appeared to attenuate over time, and these data support ongoing and enhanced efforts to recruit qualified URMs into pediatric careers to meet the growing needs of the expanding minority child population.
评估代表性不足的少数族裔 (URM) 儿科医生为少数民族和/或公共保险或无保险儿童服务的程度是否高于非 URM 儿科医生,并评估这些关系的趋势。
1993 年、2000 年和 2007 年对美国儿科学会调查的回应者提供了他们的种族/民族、实践地点以及他们的患者群体的估计种族/民族和保险来源。我们根据种族/民族将儿科医生分类为 URM(黑人、西班牙裔、夏威夷/太平洋岛民或美洲印第安人/阿拉斯加原住民)或非 URM(白人、非西班牙裔/拉丁裔、亚洲人或其他)。我们比较了 URM 和非 URM 儿科医生患者群体中少数民族(不包括亚洲人)的平均百分比,以及比较了公共保险(包括 TRICARE)或无保险患者的平均百分比。
所有调查的回应率均超过 50%。1993 年有 1003 名(URM 占 10.2%)住院后受访者,2000 年有 707 名(URM 占 11.8%),2007 年有 900 名(URM 占 11.1%)。在所有 3 项调查中,URM 儿科医生患者群体中少数民族儿童的平均百分比均高于非 URM 儿科医生约 20 个百分点(均<.001)。在研究期间,公共保险或无保险患者的百分比差异扩大,从 1993 年 URM 儿科医生实践中 46%对非 URM 实践中 38.8%,到 2007 年分别为 59.7%对 40.7%(<.001)。在多变量分析中,URM 儿科医生的患者群体中少数民族的平均百分比更高(高出 15.2 个百分点;95%置信区间[CI]:12.1-18.4),公共保险和无保险患者的平均百分比更高(高出 10.9 个百分点;95%CI:6.7-15.4)与非 URM 儿科医生的患者群体相比。
在过去的 14 年中,URM 儿科医生比非 URM 同行更有可能照顾少数民族儿童和公共保险或无保险患者。这种关系似乎并没有随着时间的推移而减弱,这些数据支持持续和加强努力,招募合格的 URM 进入儿科职业,以满足不断增长的少数族裔儿童人口的需求。