Background: Exposure to racial discrimination may exacerbate disparities throughout the cancer care continuum. Therefore, we explored how experiences of racial discrimination in the health-care setting manifest for Black cancer patients and how it contributes to racial disparities in cancer care. Methods: This qualitative analysis used semistructured in-depth interviews with Black cancer survivors not on active treatment from May 2019 to March 2020. All interviews were audio recorded, professionally transcribed, and uploaded into Dedoose software for analysis. We identified major themes and subthemes that highlight exposure to racial discrimination and its consequences for Black cancer patients when receiving cancer care. Results: Participants included 18 Black cancer survivors, aged 29-88 years. Most patients experienced racial discrimination when seeking care. Participants experienced racial discrimination from their interactions with health-care staff, medical assistants, front desk staff, and health insurance administrators. Exposure to overt racial discrimination in the health-care setting was rooted in racial stereotypes and manifested through verbal insults such as physicians using phrases such as “you people.” These experiences impacted the ability of the health-care delivery system to demonstrate trustworthiness. Patients noted “walking out” of their visit and not having their health issues addressed. Despite experiences with racial discrimination, patients still sought care out of necessity believing it was an inevitable part of the Black individual experience. Conclusion: We identified that exposure to racial discrimination in the health-care setting is pervasive, affects health-seeking behaviors, and degrades the patient–clinician relationship, which may likely contribute to racial disparities in cancer care.

Background: As Asian American breast cancer incidence rises, it is necessary to investigate the origins of differential breast cancer outcomes among Asian ethnic subgroups. This study aimed to examine disparities in delays of breast cancer surgery among Asian ethnic subgroups. Methods: We obtained California Cancer Registry data on female breast cancer diagnoses and treatment from 2012 to 2017. Our main independent variable was patient race and ethnicity, including 6 Asian ethnic subgroups. Dependent variables included time to surgical treatment for breast cancer and receipt of surgical treatment within 30 and 90 days of diagnosis. We conducted multivariable logistic regression to determine the odds of receiving surgery within 30 and 90 days of diagnosis and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression to determine the risk of prolonged time to surgery. Results: In our cohort of 93 168 breast cancer patients, Hispanic (odds ratio [OR] = 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.82 to 0.89) and non-Hispanic Black (OR = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.78 to 0.88) patients were statistically significantly less likely than non-Hispanic White patients to receive surgery within 30 days of breast cancer diagnosis, whereas Asian Indian or Pakistani (OR = 1.23, 95% CI = 1.09 to 1.40) and Chinese (OR = 1.30, 95% CI = 1.20 to 1.40) patients were statistically significantly more likely to receive surgery within 30 days of diagnosis. Conclusions: This large, population-based retrospective cohort study of female breast cancer patients is the first, to our knowledge, to demonstrate that time to surgical treatment is not equal for all Asians. Distinct differences among Asian ethnic subgroups suggest the necessity of further investigating breast cancer treatment patterns to fully understand and target disparities in breast cancer treatment.

Black patients with cancer report worse experiences with health care compared with White patients; however, little is known about what influences these ratings. The objective of this study is to explore the multilevel factors that influence global ratings of care for Black cancer survivors. We conducted semistructured in-depth interviews with 18 Black cancer survivors. We assessed the global ratings of their personal doctor, specialist, health plan, prescription drug plan, and overall health care, and asked patients to elaborate on their rating. We analyzed the interviews with a deductive grounded theory approach using the socioecologic model to identify the individual, interpersonal, organizational, and environmental influences on Black cancer patient experiences with global ratings of care. We used an inductive constant comparison approach to identify additional themes that emerged. Two coauthors separately coded a set of transcripts and met to refine the codebook. On average, participants reported the highest mean rating for their specialist (9.39/10) and the lowest mean rating for their personal doctor (7.33/10). Emerging themes that influenced patient ratings were perceptions about their interaction with medical providers, physician communication, the doctor's expertise, and aspects of the physical facilities. Global ratings of care measures were widely influenced by patient interactions with their providers that were empathetic, nondiscriminatory, and where the doctors addressed all concerns. This grounded theory study identifies multiple aspects of health care that intervention researchers, health care administrators, and providers may target to improve Black cancer patient experiences with care.

Background: Discrimination is associated with worse mental and physical health outcomes. However, the associations among cancer survivors are limited. Objective: We examined whether discrimination is associated with HRQoL and whether adjusting for it reduces racial/ethnic disparities in HRQoL among cancer survivors. Methods: Cross-sectional data from adult cancer survivors who completed surveys on discrimination in the medical settings (DMS), everyday perceived discrimination (PD), and HRQoL in the “All of Us” Program from 2018 to 2022 were assessed. We created a binary indicator for fair-to-poor vs. good-to-excellent physical health and mental health. PD and DMS scores were a continuous measure with higher scores reflecting more discrimination. Multivariable logistic regression models tested whether DMS and PD are associated with HRQoL and whether they differently affect the association between race/ethnicity and HRQoL. Results: The sample (N = 16,664) of cancer survivors was predominantly White (86%) and female (59%), with a median age of 69. Every 5-unit increase in DMS and PD scores was associated with greater odds of fair-to-poor physical health (DMS: OR [95%CI] = 1.66 [1.55, 1.77], PD: 1.33 [1.27, 1.40]) and mental health (DMS: 1.57 [1.47, 1.69], PD: 1.33 [1.27, 1.39]). After adjusting for DMS or PD, Black and Hispanic survivors had a decreased likelihood of fair-to-poor physical health and mental health (decrease estimate range: − 6 to − 30%) compared to White survivors. This effect was greater for Black survivors when adjusting for PD, as the odds of fair-to-poor mental health compared to White survivors were no longer statistically significant (1.78 [1.32, 2.34] vs 1.22 [0.90, 1.64]). Conclusion: Experiences of discrimination are associated with lower HRQoL and reducing it may mitigate racial/ethnic disparities in HRQoL.

Purpose: We aimed to assess whether nativity differences in socioeconomic (SES) barriers and health literacy were associated with healthcare delays among US cancer survivors. Methods: “All of Us” survey data were analyzed among adult participants ever diagnosed with cancer. A binary measure of healthcare delay (1+ delays versus no delays) was created. Health literacy was assessed using the Brief Health Literacy Screen. A composite measure of SES barriers (education, employment, housing, income, and insurance statuses) was created as 0, 1, 2, or 3+. Multivariable logistic regression model tested the associations of (1) SES barriers and health literacy with healthcare delays, and (2) whether nativity modified this relationship. Results: Median participant age was 64 years (n = 10,020), with 8% foreign-born and 18% ethnic minorities. Compared to survivors with no SES barriers, those with 3+ had higher likelihood of experiencing healthcare delays (OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.84, 2.58). For every additional barrier, the odds of healthcare delays were greater among foreign-born (1.72, 1.43, 2.08) than US-born (1.27, 1.21, 1.34). For every 1-unit increase in health literacy among US-born, the odds of healthcare delay decreased by 9% (0.91, 0.89, 0.94). Conclusion: We found that SES barriers to healthcare delays have a greater impact among foreign-born than US-born cancer survivors. Higher health literacy may mitigate healthcare delays among US cancer survivors. Healthcare providers, systems and policymakers should assess and address social determinants of health and promote health literacy as a way to minimize healthcare delays among both foreign- and US-born cancer survivors.

Background: Patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) and multiple comorbidities are less likely to receive guideline-concordant treatment (GCT), a disparity exacerbated by racial and ethnic disparities in GCT. Yet, positive patient experiences with care are associated with more appropriate care use. We investigated associations between patient experiences with care, race and ethnicity, and receipt of GCT for CRC among older adults with multiple comorbidities. Methods: We used SEER-Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) data to identify participants diagnosed with CRC from 2001 to 2017 at age ≥67 years with additional chronic conditions. Stage-specific GCT was identified following recommendations in the NCCN Guidelines for Colon and Rectal Cancer. Patient experiences with care were identified from CAHPS surveys. Multivariable log-binomial regression estimated associations between race and ethnicity and receipt of GCT by experiences with care. Results: A total of 2,612 patients were included. Those reporting excellent experience with getting care quickly were 5% more likely to receive GCT than those reporting less-than-excellent experience (relative risk [RR], 1.05; 95% CI, 1.04–1.05). When reporting less-than-excellent experience with getting care quickly, non-Hispanic Black (NHB) patients were less likely than non-Hispanic White (NHW) patients to receive GCT (RR, 0.80; 99.38% CI, 0.78–0.82), yet NHB patients were more likely to receive GCT than NHW patients when reporting excellent experience (RR, 1.05; 99.38% CI, 1.02–1.09). When reporting less-than-excellent experience with getting needed care, Hispanic patients were less likely than NHW patients to receive GCT (RR, 0.91; 99.38% CI, 0.88–0.94), yet Hispanic patients were more likely to receive GCT than NHW patients when reporting excellent experience (RR, 1.06; 99.38% CI, 1.03–1.08). Conclusions: Although excellent patient experience among those with multiple comorbidities may not be strongly associated with receipt of GCT for CRC overall, improvements in experiences of accessing care among NHB and Hispanic patients with CRC and additional comorbidities may aid in mitigating racial and ethnic disparities in receipt of GCT.