Back

Disparities in Quality of Healthcare between Asian and White Children with Special Health Care Needs from 2016-2020

Van, K. K.; Chen, C.-C.; Son, E.; Brown, R. C.

2025-08-21 health systems and quality improvement
10.1101/2025.08.18.25333922 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundApproximately one in five families in the United States have a child with a special healthcare need (CSHCN). Previous research has shown significant inequalities in health care quality, access, satisfaction, and outcomes of Asian compared to White individuals. There is limited research currently available exploring disparities in health care quality at the intersection of race and CSHCN complexity for Asian versus White children. ObjectiveThe goal of this study is to understand how race, household language, poverty, family structure, and complexity of healthcare needs affect the quality of health care received by Asian and White CSHCNs. MethodData was obtained from the 2016-2020 National Survey of Childrens Health. Five multivariate ordinal regression analyses were performed to explore the predictors of parents perceptions of healthcare quality across five domains: time spent with the child, doctor listening to parent concerns, doctor being sensitive to family values/customs, doctor providing needed information, and doctor partnering with the family in their childs care. ResultsResults show that Asian parents with CHSCNs report lower quality care than White parents with CSHCNs. However, quality of care dropped for high complexity CSHCN regardless of race. Significant covariates included language barriers, socioeconomic factors, and cultural differences. ConclusionAsian CSHCNs experience disparities in healthcare quality, access, and utilization compared to their White counterparts. The results from this study suggest the need to examine subgroup differences and develop effective intervention strategies to ensure equitable care for everyone, especially CSHCN with high complex needs.

Matching journals

The top 4 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.