There has been a resurgence of interest in the relation between health and socioeconomic position (SEP). SEP encompasses two important notions: the influence of the structural location of individuals and groups in a society and the cumulative effects of time. It addresses the context in which health-damaging exposures and health-protective resources act at different stages of the life course to influence adult health (1, 2). Such an approach provides a broad framework in which to think about and understand how both recent and remote socioeconomic factors interact to affect adult health. A substantial body of literature demonstrates that in the general population, material and social deprivation are directly related to disease incidence and prevalence and inversely related to health status (1, 3–8). Various studies have addressed the relation between lower SEP and mortality (9) or the development of chronic conditions (10–13) such as diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular disease, and cancer. Although some compelling evidence exists for an association between low SEP and adverse health outcomes for persons with diabetes and other chronic conditions, the pathways through which SEP and health are related in persons with chronic illness are poorly understood.

Health disparities research in the United States over the past 2 decades has yielded considerable progress and contributed to a developing evidence base for interventions that tackle disparities in health status and access to care. However, health disparity interventions have focused primarily on individual and interpersonal factors, which are often limited in their ability to yield sustained improvements. Health disparities emerge and persist through complex mechanisms that include socioeconomic, environmental, and system-level factors. To accelerate the reduction of health disparities and yield enduring health outcomes requires broader approaches that intervene upon these structural determinants. Although an increasing number of innovative programs and policies have been deployed to address structural determinants, few explicitly focused on their impact on minority health and health disparities. Rigorously evaluated, evidence-based structural interventions are needed to address multilevel structural determinants that systemically lead to and perpetuate social and health inequities. This article highlights examples of structural interventions that have yielded health benefits, discusses challenges and opportunities for accelerating improvements in minority health, and proposes recommendations to foster the development of structural interventions likely to advance health disparities research.

Objective: The aim was to provide a scholarly review of the published literature on biological, clinical, and nonclinical contributors to race/ethnic and sex disparities in endocrine disorders and to identify current gaps in knowledge as a focus for future research needs. Participants in Development of Scientific Statement: The Endocrine Society's Scientific Statement Task Force (SSTF) selected the leader of the statement development group (S.H.G.). She selected an eight-member writing group with expertise in endocrinology and health disparities, which was approved by the Society. All discussions regarding the scientific statement content occurred via teleconference or written correspondence. No funding was provided to any expert or peer reviewer, and all participants volunteered their time to prepare this Scientific Statement. Evidence: The primary sources of data on global disease prevalence are from the World Health Organization. A comprehensive literature search of PubMed identified U.S. population-based studies. Search strategies combining Medical Subject Headings terms and keyword terms and phrases defined two concepts: 1) racial, ethnic, and sex differences including specific populations; and 2) the specific endocrine disorder or condition. The search identified systematic reviews, meta-analyses, large cohort and population-based studies, and original studies focusing on the prevalence and determinants of disparities in endocrine disorders. Consensus Process: The writing group focused on population differences in the highly prevalent endocrine diseases of type 2 diabetes mellitus and related conditions (prediabetes and diabetic complications), gestational diabetes, metabolic syndrome with a focus on obesity and dyslipidemia, thyroid disorders, osteoporosis, and vitamin D deficiency. Authors reviewed and synthesized evidence in their areas of expertise. The final statement incorporated responses to several levels of review: 1) comments of the SSTF and the Advocacy and Public Outreach Core Committee; and 2) suggestions offered by the Council and members of The Endocrine Society. Conclusions: Several themes emerged in the statement, including a need for basic science, population-based, translational and health services studies to explore underlying mechanisms contributing to endocrine health disparities. Compared to non-Hispanic whites, non-Hispanic blacks have worse outcomes and higher mortality from certain disorders despite having a lower (e.g. macrovascular complications of diabetes mellitus and osteoporotic fractures) or similar (e.g. thyroid cancer) incidence of these disorders. Obesity is an important contributor to diabetes risk in minority populations and to sex disparities in thyroid cancer, suggesting that population interventions targeting weight loss may favorably impact a number of endocrine disorders. There are important implications regarding the definition of obesity in different race/ethnic groups, including potential underestimation of disease risk in Asian-Americans and overestimation in non-Hispanic black women. Ethnic-specific cut-points for central obesity should be determined so that clinicians can adequately assess metabolic risk. There is little evidence that genetic differences contribute significantly to race/ethnic disparities in the endocrine disorders examined. Multilevel interventions have reduced disparities in diabetes care, and these successes can be modeled to design similar interventions for other endocrine diseases.

OBJECTIVE—To examine racial/ethnic and socioeconomic variation in diabetes care in managed-care settings. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—We studied 7,456 adults enrolled in health plans participating in the Translating Research Into Action for Diabetes study, a six-center cohort study of diabetes in managed care. Cross-sectional analyses using hierarchical regression models assessed processes of care (HbA_1c [A1C], lipid, and proteinuria assessment; foot and dilated eye examinations; use or advice to use aspirin; and influenza vaccination) and intermediate health outcomes (A1C, LDL, and blood pressure control). RESULTS—Most quality indicators and intermediate outcomes were comparable across race/ethnicity and socioeconomic position (SEP). Latinos and Asians/Pacific Islanders had similar or better processes and intermediate outcomes than whites with the exception of slightly higher A1C levels. Compared with whites, African Americans had lower rates of A1C and LDL measurement and influenza vaccination, higher rates of foot and dilated eye examinations, and the poorest blood pressure and lipid control. The main SEP difference was lower rates of dilated eye examinations among poorer and less educated individuals. In almost all instances, racial/ethnic minorities or low SEP participants with poor glycemic, blood pressure, and lipid control received similar or more appropriate intensification of therapy relative to whites or those with higher SEP. CONCLUSIONS—In these managed-care settings, minority race/ethnicity was not consistently associated with worse processes or outcomes, and not all differences favored whites. The only notable SEP disparity was in rates of dilated eye examinations. Social disparities in health may be reduced in managed-care settings.

Although disease management programs are widely implemented, little is known about their effectiveness. To determine whether disease management by physician groups is associated with diabetes care processes, control of intermediate outcomes, or the amount of medication used when intermediate outcomes are above target levels. Cross-sectional study. Patients were randomly sampled from 63 physician groups nested in 7 health plans sponsored by Translating Research into Action for Diabetes (87%) and from 4 health plans with individual physician contracts (13%). 8661 adults with diabetes who completed a survey (2000–2001) and had medical record data. Physician group and health plan directors described their organizations' use of physician reminders, performance feedback, and structured care management on a survey; their responses were used to determine measures of intensity of disease management. The current study measured 8 processes of care, including most recent hemoglobin A_1c level, systolic blood pressure, serum low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level, and several measures of medication use. Increased use of any of 3 disease management strategies was significantly associated with higher adjusted rates of retinal screening, nephropathy screening, foot examinations, and measurement of hemoglobin A_1c levels. Serum lipid level testing and influenza vaccine administration were associated with greater use of structured care management and performance feedback. Greater use of performance feedback correlated with an increased rate of foot examinations (difference, 5 percentage points [95% CI, 1 to 8 percentage points]), and greater use of physician reminders was associated with an increased rate of nephropathy screening (difference, 15 percentage points [CI, 6 to 23 percentage points]). No strategies were associated with intermediate outcome levels or level of medication management. Physician groups were not randomly sampled from population-based listings, and disease management strategies were not randomly allocated across groups. Disease management strategies were associated with better processes of diabetes care but not with improved intermediate outcomes or level of medication management. A greater focus on direct measurement, feedback, and reporting of intermediate outcome levels or of level of medication management may enhance the effectiveness of these programs. *See Appendix 1 for a complete list of the TRIAD Study Group.

Eating away from home and particularly fast food consumption have been shown to contribute to weight gain. Increased geographic access to fast food outlets and other restaurants may contribute to higher levels of obesity, especially in individuals who rely largely on the local environment for their food purchases. We examined whether fast food and restaurant concentrations are associated with body mass index and whether car ownership might moderate this association. We linked the 2000 US Census data and information on locations of fast food and other restaurants with the Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Study database, which consists of 2,156 adults sampled from 63 neighborhoods in Los Angeles County. Multilevel modeling was used to estimate associations between body mass index (BMI), fast food and restaurant concentration, and car ownership after adjustment for individual-level factors and socioeconomic characteristics of residential neighborhoods. A high concentration of local restaurants is associated with BMI. Car owners have higher BMIs than non-car owners; however, individuals who do not own cars and reside in areas with a high concentration of fast food outlets have higher BMIs than non-car owners who live in areas with no fast food outlets, approximately 12 lb more (p = 0.02) for an individual with a height of 5 ft. 5 in. Higher restaurant density is associated with higher BMI among local residents. The local fast food environment has a stronger association with BMI for local residents who do not have access to cars.