Back

Social Determinants of Genetics Referral and Completion Rates Among Child Neurology Patients

Cole, J. J.; Sellitto, A. D.; Baratta, L. R.; Huecker, J. B.; Balls-Berry, J. E.; Gurnett, C. A.

2023-09-13 neurology
10.1101/2023.09.12.23295450 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectiveTo investigate clinical, social, and systems-level determinants predictive of genetics clinic referral and completion of genetics clinic visits among child neurology patients. MethodsElectronic health record data were extracted from patients 0-18 years old who were evaluated in child neurology clinics at a single tertiary care institution between July 2018 to January 2020. Variables aligned with the Health Equity Implementation Framework. Referral and referral completion rates to genetics and cardiology clinics were compared among Black vs White patients using bivariate analysis. Demographic variables associated with genetics clinic referral and visit completion were identified using logistic regressions. ResultsIn a cohort of 11,371 child neurology patients, 304 genetics clinic referrals and 82 cardiology clinic referrals were placed. In multivariate analysis of patients with Black or White ethnoracial identity (n=10,601), genetics clinic referral rates did not differ by race, but were significantly associated with younger age, rural address, neurodevelopmental disorder diagnosis, number of neurology clinic visits, and provider type. The only predictors of genetics clinic visit completion number of neurology clinic visits and race/ethnicity, with White patients being twice as likely as Black patients to complete the visit. Cardiology clinic referrals and visit completion did not differ by race/ethnicity. InterpretationAlthough race/ethnicity was not associated with differences in genetics clinic referral rates, White patients were twice as likely as Black patients to complete a genetics clinic visit after referral. Further work is needed to determine whether this is due to systemic/structural racism, differences in attitudes toward genetic testing, or other factors.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.