Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Perception of Health Literacy and Barriers to Care Among Cervical Stenosis Patients

Abstract

Study Design

Cross-Sectional Survey.

Objective

This study aimed to assess racial disparities in self-reported barriers to care, health literacy, and health status within a large cohort of cervical stenosis patients.

Methods

This cross-sectional study used ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes to identify cervical stenosis patients recorded in the NIH All of Us Research Program between 2017 and 2022. Demographic information and self-reported measures of health status, health literacy, and perceived barriers to care were compared among White, Black, and Hispanic patients using Chi square tests.

Results

Of 5480 patients identified, 658 (12.0) were Black, 379 (6.9) Hispanic, and 4443 (81.1) White. White patients were more likely to possess college education (P < .001), income >$50k per year (P < .001), and non-disabled employment status (P < .001). Black and Hispanic patients reported higher levels of 7-10 pain (P < .001), “severe” 7-day fatigue (P < .001), and poor general health (P < .001). Black and Hispanic patients also reported greater difficulties understanding medical information (P < .001) and navigating medical forms alone (P < .001). Black and Hispanic patients were likelier to report delaying care due to unaffordable copays (P < .001), transportation difficulties (P < .001), or dissimilar provider background. Provider background was more likely to be described as “very important” by Black and Hispanic patients (P < .001).

Conclusion

This study identified significant disparities in health status, health literacy, and access to care among patients with cervical stenosis, highlighting diverse patient perspectives on barriers to care which may warrant further study.

Keywords

spinal stenosis social determinants of health patient reported outcome measure all of us

Introduction

The narrowing of the spinal canal or foraminal spaces, also known as spinal stenosis, is a common imaging finding in the elderly.¹ Epidemiological data suggests that cervical spine stenosis has an incidence rate of 1 case per 100,000.¹ Narrowing of the spinal canal in cervical stenosis can lead to direct pressure on the spinal cord, causing cervical myelopathy.² Symptoms can manifest as neck pain, radiating arm pain, numbness or tingling in the arms and hands, upper extremity weakness and difficulty with balance and coordination.³ Proper diagnosis of cervical stenosis requires imaging techniques such as computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and effective treatment of symptomatic cervical stenosis often involves surgical decompression procedures such as laminectomy, foraminotomy, discectomy, and corpectomy. While cervical stenosis itself is often asymptomatic, delays in diagnosis can lead to progression to potentially debilitating conditions such as radiculopathy or degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) wherein extended duration of symptoms have been repeatedly identified as predictors of worsened surgical outcomes.^4-6 Moreover, even in non-surgically treated spinal stenosis patients, symptom duration of >12 months has been described as a predictor of reduced improvement in SF-36 Bodily Pain (BP), SF-36 Physical Function (PF), and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI).⁷ Therefore, identifying and reducing barriers to care can provide increased access to these essential diagnostic and therapeutic services, improving the management and outcomes of patients with cervical stenosis.

Existing literature has thoroughly documented the persistent racial disparities which degenerative cervical spine disease patients face. Das et al⁸ found that white patients were less likely to present with symptomatic manifestations of cervical stenosis such as myelopathy, plegia, and bowel-bladder dysfunction, in comparison to Black and Hispanic patients. Similarly, Schoenfeld et al⁹ described higher baseline SF-36 BP, SF-36 PF, ODI, and Stenosis Bothersomeness Index in Black patients with spinal stenosis. One possible explanation for these differing presentations may lie in the reduced rate of surgical treatment for patients of minority races due to limitations accessing high-volume hospitals and outpatient surgical centers.^8,10,11 Notably, a 2016 retrospective cohort study of 133 patients undergoing elective anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) surgery found that black patients experienced disproportionate delay in the diagnosis and treatment of symptomatic cervical stenosis.¹² Moreover, such delays in treatment have been shown to persist even when adjusting for socioeconomic and community disadvantage.¹³

Yet, there has been relatively limited investigation into the causes of racial disparities in time to treatment for patients with degenerative diseases of the cervical spine. Pope et al described in a cohort of 778 DCM patients that race alone predicted diagnostic delay while sex, age, county of residence, education status, and household income did not.¹⁴ Similarly, Elsamidicy et al in a cohort of 133 cervical stenosis patients identified only race as a significant predictor for duration of symptoms prior to ACDF.¹² Employment status, marital status, age, anxiety, and baseline VAS neck pain all failed to meaningfully predict time to treatment in their cohort. Self-reported barriers to care remain understudied. One opportunity to identify the causes of existing disparities may lie in the All of Us Research Program, a database which collects a range of patient data including access to care surveys.¹⁵ In this study, we used International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes to query the All of Us database for patients diagnosed with cervical stenosis and investigated potential racial disparities in self-reported barriers to care.

Materials and Methods

Ethical Considerations

This study was exempt from institutional review board approval as data from the All of Us Research Program is de-identified. The requirement for informed consent did not apply due to the anonymized nature of the database. Approval for the original All of Us Research program was provided by the All of Us Institutional Review Board of the National Institutes of Health.

Study Design

The All of Us Research Program is a prospective cohort study funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) which collects data through self-reported surveys, Electronic Health Record, and biophysical sensors such as Fitbit.¹⁶ The All of Us Research Program institutional review board approved all study procedures prior to database publication. This cross-sectional study was conducted on version 7 of the database using the All of Us Researcher Workbench and involved a cohort of cervical spinal stenosis patients. Patients were identified using ICD codes 723.0, 721.1, and 722.71 from ICD9 and M48.02, M47.12, and M50.0 from ICD 10. To ensure sufficient demographic sample sizes, only participants with racial identities of White, Black, and Hispanic or sex at birth categories of male and female were retrieved. Additionally, participants identifying as multiracial were excluded. These steps were taken to ensure compliance with the All of Us data reporting standards which prohibit reporting of data involving less than 20 participants.¹⁶

Participants were subsequently stratified into Hispanic, Black race alone, and White race alone ethno-racial categories, using methods described in previous studies.¹⁷ Self-perceived barriers to care were identified using survey questionnaires maintained by the All of Us Research Program. Utilized questionnaires included the physical health portion of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS-10) Global Health scale, the Brief Health Literacy Screen (BHLS), and All of Us internal questionnaires relating to self-perceived barriers to care.^18-20 In addition, demographic information including sex, employment status, insurance status, marital status, and education level was retrieved. Participants were able to skip individual surveys and questions. Thus, to ensure complete cases, participants with missing surveys were excluded from analysis and answers of “Skip” and “I Don’t Know” were not reported in stratified survey counts. Exact questionnaire wording can be found within the All of Us data tools hub (https://www.researchallofus.org/data-tools/).

In order to assess objective health utilization across cohorts, rates of surgical intervention in the 2 years following diagnosis were retrieved using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes described by Waddell et al.²¹ The CPT codes used to assess surgical intervention included those for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) (22551, 22554, 63075, 22552, 22585), anterior corpectomy (63081, 63082), laminectomy (63001, 63015, 63045, 63048), posterior fusion (22600, 22614), posterior discectomy (63020, 63040, 63035, 63043), laminoplasty (63050, 63051), and cervical disk arthroplasty (22856, 22858). Potentially relevant prescribed medication classes was also retrieved using Anatomical Therapeutic Classification (ATC) codes for muscle relaxants (M03), opioids (N02 A), non-opioid analgesics (N02 B), corticosteroids (H02), and gabapentin (N03AX12).²²

Statistical Analysis

Survey data were compared between stratified cohorts using Chi-square tests when expected values were >5 and Fisher exact tests when expected values were below 5. Additional post hoc Chi-square pairwise tests comparing White patients to Black or Hispanic patients were conducted for groups with significant differences. Missing data were excluded from analysis. All P-values are shown adjusted following application of a Bonferroni correction to reduce risk of false discovery. P-values of P < .05 were considered significant. All data analysis was performed within the All of Us Researcher Workbench using R Studio version 4.2 and Python 3.

Results

A total of 5480 cervical spinal stenosis patients in the All of Us Researcher Workbench met our inclusion criteria. 658 (12.0%) patients identified as Black alone, 379 (6.9%) as Hispanic, and 4443 (81.1%) as White alone. White patients were disproportionately older than 65 years of age (White vs Black P < .001; White vs Hispanic P < .001), whereas Black and Hispanic patients were disproportionately 18-45 years of age (Black vs White P < .001; Hispanic vs White P < .001) (Table 1). While all cohorts were disproportionately female, Black patients had a particularly large share of females relative to White patients (Black vs White P < .001). White patients tended to be of higher socioeconomic status than patients of specific minority groups, with greater proportions reporting college (White vs Black P < .001; White vs Hispanic P = 1) or advanced degree status (White vs Black P < .001; White vs Hispanic P < .001), employed status (White vs Black P < .001; White vs Hispanic P = 1), incomes of >100k per year (White vs Black P < .001; White vs Hispanic P < .001), and private insurance (White vs Black P < .001; White vs Hispanic P < .001). In addition, Black patients were more likely to report never married status relative to Hispanic or White patients (Black vs White P < .001; Black vs Hispanic P < .001). Assessment of health literacy using the BHLS revealed notable differences in difficulty understanding health information, with Black and Hispanic patients significantly more likely to report “Sometimes” or “Often/Always” having problems learning about their medical conditions due to challenges with written communication relative to White patients (Black vs White P < .001; Hispanic vs White P < .001) (Table 2). Both answers were also overrepresented among Hispanic patients for the question “How often do you have someone help you read health-related materials” (Hispanic vs White P < .001), while Black patients were also more likely to report “Sometimes” (Black vs White P < .001) but not “Often/Always” (Black vs White P = .419) requiring assistance. In contrast, White patients were more likely to report “Never” having difficulty understanding information (White vs Black P < .001; White vs Hispanic P < .001) or needing health material assistance (White vs Black P = .085; White vs Hispanic P < .001). Concerning medical form confidence, Black and Hispanic patients were less likely to report feeling “Extremely” confident (Black vs White P < .001; Hispanic vs White P < .001) and more likely to report feeling only “Somewhat” confident filling out medical forms by themselves (Black vs White P < .001; Hispanic vs White P < .001).

Table 1.

Demographic Data for Spinal Stenosis Patients. Parentheses Indicate Percentages; P-values are Bonferroni Adjusted for Multiple Comparisons.

Variable	Black (n = 658)	Hispanic (n = 379)	White (n = 4443)	P-value
Age
18-45	29 (4.41%)	30 (7.92%)	225 (5.06%)	1.000
45-64	301 (45.74%)	184 (48.55%)	1268 (28.54%)	<0.001
65+	328 (49.85%)	165 (43.54%)	2950 (66.4%)	<0.001
Sex at birth
Female	477 (72.49%)	253 (66.75%)	2724 (61.31%)	<0.001
Male	181 (27.51%)	126 (33.25%)	1719 (38.69%)	<0.001
Region
Northeast	221 (33.59%)	45 (11.87%)	1078 (24.26%)	<0.001
Midwest	168 (25.53%)	148 (39.05%)	1854 (41.73%)	<0.001
South	214 (32.52%)	83 (21.9%)	561 (12.63%)	<0.001
West	54 (8.21%)	102 (26.91%)	947 (21.31%)	<0.001
Highest grade
< high school	47 (7.14%)	59 (15.57%)	64 (1.44%)	<0.001
High school or GE	145 (22.04%)	66 (17.41%)	453 (10.2%)	<0.001
Some college	248 (37.69%)	110 (29.02%)	1265 (28.47%)	0.003
College graduate	116 (17.63%)	75 (19.79%)	1137 (25.59%)	0.001
Advanced degree	86 (13.07%)	66 (17.41%)	1480 (33.31%)	<0.001
Employment status
Unemployed	61 (9.27)	41 (10.82)	230 (5.17)	<0.001
Disabled	221 (33.59%)	106 (27.97%)	684 (15.4%)	<0.001
Employed	189 (28.73)	131 (34.56)	1683 (37.88)	0.002
Retired	221 (33.59%)	95 (25.07%)	2075 (46.7%)	<0.001
Other	24 (3.65)	26 (6.86)	205 (4.61)	1.000
Health insurance
Medicaid	213 (32.37%)	117 (30.87%)	469 (10.56%)	<0.001
Medicare	236 (35.87%)	116 (30.61%)	2050 (46.14%)	<0.001
Private insurance	199 (30.24%)	115 (30.34%)	2253 (50.71%)	<0.001
Other	61 (9.27%)	43 (11.35%)	512 (11.52%)	1.000
Annual income
< $25k	263 (39.97%)	127 (33.51%)	580 (13.05%)	<0.001
$25-50k	105 (15.96%)	61 (16.09%)	694 (15.62%)	1.000
$50-100k	99 (15.05%)	60 (15.83%)	1176 (26.47%)	<0.001
$100-150k	40 (6.08%)	20 (5.28%)	686 (15.44%)	<0.001
>$150k	21 (3.19%)	30 (7.92%)	781 (17.58%)	<0.001
Not reported	130 (19.76%)	81 (21.37%)	526 (11.84%)	<0.001
Current marital status
Formerly married	214 (32.52%)	112 (29.55%)	1103 (24.83%)	0.003
Married	218 (33.13%)	192 (50.66%)	2647 (59.58%)	<0.001
Never married	184 (27.96%)	48 (12.66%)	477 (10.74%)	<0.001
Other	42 (6.38%)	27 (7.12%)	216 (4.86%)	1.000

Table 2.

Summary of Health Literacy Survey Responses by Spinal Stenosis Patients. Parentheses Indicate Percentages; P-values are Bonferroni Adjusted for Multiple Comparisons.

Variable	Black (n = 658)	Hispanic (n = 379)	White (n = 4443)	P-value
Difficulty understanding info
Never	426 (64.74%)	226 (59.63%)	3352 (75.44%)	<0.001
Occasionally	89 (13.53%)	65 (17.15%)	768 (17.29%)	1
Sometimes	91 (13.83%)	52 (13.72%)	197 (4.43%)	<0.001
Often/Always	40 (6.08)	30 (7.91)	77 (1.74)	<0.001
Health material assistance
Never	428 (65.05%)	220 (58.05%)	3190 (71.8%)	<0.001
Occasionally	101 (15.35%)	52 (13.72%)	771 (17.35%)	1
Sometimes	79 (12.01%)	51 (13.46%)	284 (6.39%)	<0.001
Often/Always	42 (6.38)	49 (12.93)	167 (3.76)	<0.001
Medical form confidence
Not at All/A little bit	29 (4.41)	29 (7.65)	56 (1.26)	<0.001
Somewhat	60 (9.12%)	36 (9.5%)	192 (4.32%)	<0.001
Quite a bit	118 (17.93%)	94 (24.8%)	753 (16.95%)	0.043
Extremely	444 (67.48%)	214 (56.46%)	3418 (76.93%)	<0.001

Analysis of self-reported physical health found that Hispanic patients were less likely to report mild or no fatigue relative to White patients (Hispanic vs White P < .001) (Table 3). Moreover, over the 7-day prior window, Black and Hispanic patients were more likely to report 9-10 pain than White patients (Black vs White P < .001; Hispanic vs White P < .001), whereas White patients were more likely to report 0-2 pain (White vs Black P < .001; White vs Hispanic P < .001). Black and Hispanic Patients were less likely to report being able to “Mostly/Completely” engage in everyday physical activities such as “walking, climbing stairs, carrying groceries, or moving a chair” (Black vs White P < .001; Hispanic vs White P < .001). White patients also had notably higher gradings of their general health and general physical health, with higher proportions reporting Very Good/Excellent relative to minority patients (White vs Black P < .001; White vs Hispanic P < .001).

Table 3.

Summary of Self-Reported Health Survey Responses by Spinal Stenosis Patients. Parentheses Indicate Percentages; P-values are Bonferroni Adjusted for Multiple Comparisons.

Variable	Black (n = 658)	Hispanic (n = 379)	White (n = 4443)	P-value
Average fatigue 7 Days
Mild/None	314 (47.72)	162 (42.75)	2443 (54.99)	<0.001
Moderate	244 (37.08%)	141 (37.2%)	1454 (32.73%)	1
Severe/Very severe	94 (14.29)	74 (19.53)	520 (11.71)	0.002
Average pain 7 Days
0-2	119 (18.09)	87 (22.96)	1582 (35.61)	<0.001
3-4	78 (11.85)	77 (20.32)	1004 (22.59)	<0.001
5-6	133 (20.22)	75 (19.79)	901 (20.28)	1
7-8	199 (30.24)	74 (19.52)	630 (14.18)	<0.001
9-10	84 (12.76)	46 (12.14)	156 (3.51)	<0.001
Everyday activities
A little/Not at all	139 (21.13)	98 (25.86)	527 (11.86)	<0.001
Moderately	191 (29.03%)	90 (23.75%)	789 (17.76%)	<0.001
Mostly/Completely	319 (48.48)	188 (49.60)	3102 (69.82)	<0.001
General health
Fair/Poor	279 (42.40)	190 (50.13)	1188 (26.74)	<0.001
Good	251 (38.15%)	101 (26.65%)	1623 (36.53%)	0.022
Excellent/Very good	124 (18.84)	85 (22.43)	1593 (35.85)	<0.001
General physical health
Poor/Fair	295 (44.83)	198 (52.24)	1330 (29.93)	<0.001
Good	244 (37.08%)	107 (28.23%)	1655 (37.25%)	0.157
Very good/Excellent	111 (16.87)	70 (18.47)	1423 (32.02)	<0.001

Assessment of barriers to care revealed varying causes of delayed care across racial groups (Table 4). When asked “During the past 12 months, was there any time when you needed any of the following but didn’t get it because you couldn’t afford it”, White patients were less likely to identify difficulties affording health care providers (White vs Black P < .001; White vs Hispanic P < .001), specialists (White vs Black P = .035; White vs Hispanic P = .018), follow-up care (White vs Black P < .001; White vs Hispanic P = .013), or prescription medications (White vs Black P < .001; White vs Hispanic P < .001). Interestingly, only lack of transportation (White vs Black P < .001; White vs Hispanic P = .156) and unaffordable copays (White vs Black P < .001; White vs Hispanic P = .914) highlighted between group differences in self-reported causes of delayed medical care, while high deductibles, out of pocked payments, nervousness, and finding time off work did not. Health Provider Race/Religion questions pertained to whether providers were of “the same background that [patients] are – like in terms of race or religion or native language.” Black and Hispanic patients were more likely to describe having a background-concordant physician as “Very Important” (White vs Black P < .001; White vs Hispanic P < .001) and seeing such physicians “None of the Time” (White vs Black P < .001; White vs Hispanic P < .001), with Black patients more likely to report having “delayed or not gone to see doctors… because they were different” (White vs Black P < .001; White vs Hispanic P < .511).

Table 4.

Summary of Barriers-To-Care Survey Responses by Spinal Stenosis Patients. Parentheses Indicate Percentages; P-values are Bonferroni Adjusted for Multiple Comparisons.

Variable	Black (n = 658)	Hispanic (n = 379)	White (n = 4443)	P-value
Can’t afford care
Health care provider	50 (7.6%)	33 (8.71%)	164 (3.69%)	<0.001
Specialist	74 (11.25%)	48 (12.66%)	312 (7.02%)	<0.001
Follow-up care	67 (10.18%)	40 (10.55%)	241 (5.42%)	<0.001
Prescription medicines	135 (20.52%)	68 (17.94%)	556 (12.51%)	<0.001
Delayed care due to
Can’t afford Co-pay	74 (11.25%)	38 (10.03%)	274 (6.17%)	<0.001
Deductible too high	64 (9.73%)	31 (8.18%)	270 (6.08%)	0.075
Had to pay out of pocket	82 (12.46%)	45 (11.87%)	552 (12.42%)	1
Nervous	70 (10.64%)	42 (11.08%)	368 (8.28%)	1
Time off work	31 (4.71%)	35 (9.23%)	209 (4.7%)	0.037
Transportation	111 (16.87%)	49 (12.93%)	349 (7.86%)	<0.001
Health provider race/Religion: How often same
None of the time	94 (14.29%)	53 (13.98%)	189 (4.25%)	<0.001
Some of the time	164 (24.92%)	94 (24.8%)	1066 (23.99%)	1
Most of the time/Always	333 (50.61)	198 (52.24)	2688 (60.50)	<0.001
Health provider race/Religion: How important
Not important	122 (18.54%)	66 (17.41%)	1242 (27.95%)	<0.001
Slightly/Somewhat important	183 (27.81)	104 (27.44)	1814 (40.83)	<0.001
Very important	317 (48.18%)	201 (53.03%)	1220 (27.46%)	<0.001
Health provider race/Religion: Delayed or No care due to
None of the time	514 (78.12%)	300 (79.16%)	3837 (86.36%)	<0.001
More than none of the time	105 (15.96)	54 (14.25)	415 (9.34)	<0.001

Objective utilization of medication and surgery in the 2 years following diagnosis were subsequently assessed using several CPT and ACT codes (Figures 1 and 2). The overall rate of surgical intervention was 5.6%, including 4.3% for Black patients, 5.0% for Hispanic patients, and 5.9% for white patients. Anterior approach was more common than posterior approach in all cohorts including Black (71.4%), Hispanic (63.2%), and White (64.1 %) patients. A predominance of multilevel interventions were observed in Black (57.1%), Hispanic (78.9%), and White patients (63.3%). The most common procedure was ACDF (53.2%), followed by posterior cervical fusion (20.5%), and laminectomy (16.2%). Several medications were relatively common, with 56.6% of patients receiving non-opioid analgesics, 48.0% of patients receiving an opioid, 43.3% of patients receiving a corticosteroid, 37.8% receiving a muscle relaxant, and 31.7% receiving gabapentin.

Figure 1.

Proportion of Patients Receiving Surgery by Race. Proportion of patients receiving surgery is shown, subdivided by approach, patient race, and single or multilevel operation.

Figure 2.

Proportion of Patients Receiving Medication by Race. The proportion of patients receiving several considered medications including gabapentin, corticosteroids, muscle relaxants, non-opioid analgesics, opioids is shown.

Discussion

Racial disparities in the quality of life (QOL) and post-operative outcomes of patients with degenerative spine disease continue to exist, despite extensive research and quality improvement efforts by surgeons in the past decade.²³ This cross-sectional study of cervical spinal stenosis patients identified racial disparities in the rates of several possible self-reported causes of delay in care. Among the many causes of delayed care highlighted by our study, the largest differences between racial groups were identified for non-concordant patient-provider backgrounds, transportation difficulties, and affordability of co-pays. In this study we identified large gaps in health literacy and perceived health status when comparing the investigated racial cohorts. Collectively, these insights provide a preliminary characterization of the diverse patient perspectives present within a large cohort of spinal pathology patients commonly referred for surgery.

Perceived health status and other patient-reported outcome measures have increasingly been considered as potential outcome measures in the treatment of spinal stenosis.^24-27 Yet, despite the utility for predicting outcomes and patient satisfaction, PROMIS scores at intake have not been associated with the decision to pursue spinal surgery.²⁷ Elsamidicy et al previously identified in a cohort of 345 patients undergoing elective lumbar spine surgery significantly poorer baseline and post-operative ODI, visual analog scale for back pain, and visual analog scale for leg pain among black patients relative to white patients.²⁸ Our study replicated these findings, with Black and Hispanic patients in our cohort reporting substantially higher pain and impairment of everyday activities than White patients. Such disparities in patient reported pain and function underscore the importance of further study into the interaction of race with perioperative care planning and, naturally, the corresponding optimal management.^29-31

Barriers to care may serve as an important mediator of the relationship between minority status and worsened outcomes. While few studies have investigated self-reported barriers among patients with degenerative disease of the cervical spine, Bove et al³² previously identified transportation as the most frequently cited barrier to treatment in a cohort of fifty patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. While our study replicated this finding, it also identified out of pocket costs, dissimilar provider, and cost of prescription medications as widely cited barriers across racial and ethnic groups. The elevated prevalence of transportation barriers reported by patients of Black race present an interesting adjunct to prior studies showing Black race as a strong negative predictor of the geospatial distribution of cervical spine fusions.¹³ This and other barriers to care identified by patients our study may help account for previously noted inequities, such as the higher rate at which minority patients undergo operation at low volume spine centers.^10,33

Health literacy has previously been described as a predictor of health related QOL among spine patients at baseline.^34,35 For operated cases as well, health literacy has been shown to predict post-operative PROMs such as pain and anxiety.^35,36 Yet, the role of health literacy in delay of treatment for cervical stenosis and its resulting functional impairments has been relatively under-investigated. One recent retrospective cohort of 1141 cervical spondylotic myelopathy patients identified patients with low education levels as having an elevated risk of increased pre-operative symptom duration and intensity, higher post-operative neck disability index, and lower post-operative quality-adjusted life years.³⁷ Whatever the cause, when they do present for ACDF Black and Hispanic patients appear to demand more extensive resource utilization, greater length of stay, and higher likelihood of non-routine discharge.³⁸ Further investigation will be required to validate the relevance of between group differences in health literacy on cervical stenosis outcomes.

Importantly, despite the several self-reported barriers to care identified in our cohort, our study does not conclusively establish a relationship between subjective barriers, such as perceived discrimination, transportation difficulties, or financial challenges, and the objective utilization of health services. Observed rates of conservative and surgical interventions were broadly similar to those of previous studies such as the Davison et al.²²’s 2007-2017 cervical stenosis cohort, which identified NSAID utilization in 36.7% of patients, opioid use in 59.2%, muscle relaxant use in 38.2%, and surgical intervention in 7.4%. While Black and Hispanic patients showed lower absolute utilization of surgical procedures, they also showed higher utilization of some medication treatments such as gabapentin. Future studies which assess the association of self-reported barriers with utilization or health outcomes and control for confounding factors will be required to define any relationship between subjective barriers and objective health consumption.

Limitations

Several limitations must be noted for our study. First, inherent to any analysis of cross-sectional survey data is the possibility of recall bias or social desirability bias. Similarly, our use of ICD codes to identify spinal stenosis patients and CPT/ATC codes to measure health utilization could have introduced coding or reporting bias. Moreover, the retrospective nature of our study limits our ability to analyze confounding factors. We cannot follow up on incomplete data with regard to self-reported barriers to care. Lastly, only participants who completed at least one question from the surveys were considered for our analysis. Non-responders to individual surveys may have differed meaningfully from those who did complete all surveys, leading to a non-representative sampling of patients. Our inability to investigate Asian populations presents a key area of non-representativeness, particularly given suggestions that this population may be uniquely predisposed to DCM.³⁹ However, with only 90 individuals of Asian descent identified in our initial study cohort, All of Us data reporting guidelines prevented meaningful analysis of this population.

Despite these limitations, to our knowledge this is the largest cohort study to investigate self-reported barriers to care among cervical stenosis patients, providing valuable insights into the possible socioeconomic disparities present in this spinal pathology cohort.

Conclusion

In this study of cervical spinal stenosis patients, we found that Black and Hispanic participants were more likely to self-report delays in care due to a variety of causes, including cost of follow-up appointments, transportation challenges, and inability to access physicians of a similar background. Moreover, we identified disparities in self-perceived health literacy and overall health to the detriment of Black and Hispanic patients. The inequities observed in this study provide promising avenues for future research into previously described outcome gaps between cervical stenosis patients of different races.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge All of Us participants for their contributions, without whom this research would not have been possible. We also thank the National Institutes of Health’s All of Us Research Program for making available the participant data examined in this study.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethical Statement

ORCID iD

Ethan D. L. Brown

Appendix

References

Melancia

Francisco

Antunes

. Spinal stenosis. Handb Clin Neurol. 2014;119:541-549. doi:10.1016/b978-0-7020-4086-3.00035-7

Nouri

Tetreault

Singh

Karadimas

Fehlings

. Degenerative cervical myelopathy: epidemiology, genetics, and pathogenesis. Spine. 2015;40(12):E675-693. doi:10.1097/brs.0000000000000913

Patel

Perloff

. Radicular pain syndromes: cervical, lumbar, and spinal stenosis. Semin Neurol. 2018;38(6):634-639. doi:10.1055/s-0038-1673680

Basques

Ahn

Markowitz

, et al.

Does the duration of cervical radicular symptoms impact outcomes after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion?

Clin Spine Surg. 2019;32(9):387-391.

Levy

Karamian

Adams

, et al. The impact of preoperative symptom duration on patient outcomes after posterior cervical decompression and fusion. Global Spine J. 2023;13(8):2463-2470. doi:10.1177/21925682221087735

Pope

Mowforth

Davies

Kotter

MRN

. Diagnostic delays lead to greater disability in degenerative cervical myelopathy and represent a health inequality. Spine. 2020;45(6):368-377.

Radcliff

Rihn

Hilibrand

, et al. Does the duration of symptoms in patients with spinal stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis affect outcomes? analysis of the Spine Outcomes Research Trial. Spine. 2011;36(25):2197-2210. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182341edf

Das

Vazquez

Stein

, et al. Disparities in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion provision and outcomes for cervical stenosis. N Am Spine Soc J. 2023;14:100217. doi:10.1016/j.xnsj.2023.100217

Schoenfeld

Lurie

Zhao

Bono

. The effect of race on outcomes of surgical or nonsurgical treatment of patients in the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT). Spine. 2012;37(17):1505-1515. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e318251cc78

10.

Feng

Finkelstein

Bilal

Oermann

Palese

Caridi

. Trends and disparities in cervical spine fusion procedures utilization in the New York state. Spine. 2018;43(10):E601-E606. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000002438

11.

Amen

Chatterjee

Dekhne

, et al. Improving racial and ethnic disparities in outpatient anterior cervical discectomy and fusion driven by increasing utilization of ambulatory surgical centers in New York state. Spine. 2023;48(18):1282-1288. doi:10.1097/brs.0000000000004736

12.

Elsamadicy

Adogwa

Fialkoff

, et al. Race as an independent predictor of temporal delay in time to diagnosis and treatment in patients with cervical stenosis: a study of 133 patients with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. World Neurosurg. 2016;96:107-110. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2016.08.070

13.

Peterman

Shivdasani

Naik

, et al. Geospatial evaluation of disparities in access to cervical spine fusion in metropolitan areas across the United States. Clin Spine Surg. 2024;37(5):E208-e215. doi:10.1097/bsd.0000000000001564

14.

Feng

Finkelstein

Bilal

Oermann

Palese

Caridi

. Trends and disparities in cervical spine fusion procedures utilization in the New York state. Spine. 2018;43(10):E601-E606.

15.

NIH . All of us about. Updated October 18, 2023: https://allofus.nih.gov/about/program-overview. Accessed June 30, 2024.

16.

Denny

Rutter

, et al. The “all of us” research program. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(7):668-676. doi:10.1056/NEJMsr1809937

17.

Elsamadicy

Wang

Reeves

, et al. Socioeconomic and racial/ethnic disparities in perception of health status and literacy in spine oncological patients: insights from the all of us research program. Spine. 2023;48(15):1107-1115. doi:10.1097/brs.0000000000004712

18.

Lans

Bales

Fourman

Tobert

Verlaan

Schwab

. Reliability of self-reported health literacy screening in spine patients. Spine J. 2023;23(5):715-722. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2022.12.013

19.

Zablotsky

Lessem

Gindi

Maitland

Dahlhamer

Blumberg

. Overview of the 2019 national health interview survey questionnaire redesign. Am J Public Health. 2023;113(4):408-415. doi:10.2105/ajph.2022.307197

20.

Chew

Bradley

Boyko

. Brief questions to identify patients with inadequate health literacy. Fam Med. 2004;36(8):588-594.

21.

William

Benjamin

Golinvaux

, et al. Comparative utilization of laminoplasty in the United States and Japan. Spine Surg Relat Res. 2022;6(5):460-463. doi:10.22603/ssrr.2021-0210

22.

Davison

Lilly

Eldridge

Singh

Bagley

Adogwa

. A comparison of prolonged nonoperative management strategies in cervical stenosis patients: successes versus failures. J Clin Neurosci. 2020;80:63-71.

23.

Adjei

Tang

Lipa

, et al. Addressing the impact of race and ethnicity on musculoskeletal spine care in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2024;106(7):631-638. doi:10.2106/JBJS.22.01155

24.

Crawford

Xiong

Lightsey

, et al. Insurance type is associated with baseline patient-reported outcome measures in patients with lumbar stenosis. Spine. 2022;47(10):737-744. doi:10.1097/brs.0000000000004326

25.

Boody

Bhatt

Mazmudar

Hsu

Rothrock

Patel

. Validation of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) computerized adaptive tests in cervical spine surgery. J Neurosurg Spine. 2018;28(3):268-279. doi:10.3171/2017.7.Spine17661

26.

Turcotte

Baxter

Pipkin

Patton

. Are we considering the whole patient? The impact of physical and mental health on the outcomes of spine care. Spine. 2023;48(10):720-727.

27.

Babington

Edwards

Wright

Dykstra

Friedman

Sethi

. Patient-reported outcome measures: utility for predicting spinal surgery in an integrated spine practice. PM&R. 2018;10(7):724-729.

28.

Elsamadicy

Kemeny

Adogwa

, et al. Influence of racial disparities on patient-reported satisfaction and short- and long-term perception of health status after elective lumbar spine surgery. J Neurosurg Spine. 2018;29(1):40-45. doi:10.3171/2017.12.SPINE171079

29.

Woodard

Cortese

Gupta

Mohanty

Casper

Saifi

. Racial differences in patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a multi-site study. Clin Spine Surg. 2022;35(4):176-180. doi:10.1097/bsd.0000000000001312

30.

Licciardone

Miller

Nazzal

Hernandez

Nguyen

Aryal

. Racial disparities in opioid use and lumbar spine surgery for chronic pain and in pain and function over 3 Years: a retrospective cohort study. J Pain. 2024;25(3):659-671. doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2023.09.018

31.

Akosman

Kumar

Mortenson

, et al. Racial differences in perioperative complications, readmissions, and mortalities after elective spine surgery in the United States: a systematic review using AI-assisted bibliometric analysis. Global Spine J. 2024;14(2):750-766. doi:10.1177/21925682231186759

32.

Bove

Lynch

Ammendolia

Schneider

. Patients' experience with nonsurgical treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis: a qualitative study. Spine J. 2018;18(4):639-647. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2017.08.254

33.

Cardinal

Bonney

Strickland

, et al. Disparities in the surgical treatment of adult spine diseases: a systematic review. World Neurosurg. 2022;158:290-304. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2021.10.121

34.

Koole

Lans

Lang

, et al. Limited health literacy results in lower health-related quality of life in spine patients. Spine J. 2024;24(2):263-272. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2023.09.016

35.

Feninets

Adamakidou

Mantzorou

Mastrogiannis

Govina

Tsiou

. The effect of preoperative educational intervention on anxiety and pain of patients undergoing spinal decompression surgery: a pilot randomized controlled study. Cureus. 2022;14(8):e28368. doi:10.7759/cureus.28368

36.

Kesänen

Leino-Kilpi

Lund

Montin

Puukka

Valkeapää

. Increased preoperative knowledge reduces surgery-related anxiety: a randomised clinical trial in 100 spinal stenosis patients. Eur Spine J. 2017;26(10):2520-2528. doi:10.1007/s00586-017-4963-4

37.

Agarwal

DiGiorgio

Michalopoulos

, et al. Impact of educational background on preoperative disease severity and postoperative outcomes among patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Clin Spine Surg. 2024;37(3):E137-E146.

38.

Elsamadicy

Sayeed

Sherman

JJZ

, et al. Racial/ethnic disparities among patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion or posterior cervical decompression and fusion for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a national administrative database analysis. World Neurosurg. 2024;183:e372-e385. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2023.12.103

39.

Nagoshi

Tetreault

Nakashima

, et al. Do caucasians and east asians have different outcomes following surgery for the treatment of degenerative cervical myelopathy? results from the prospective multicenter AOSpine international study. Spine. 2016;41(18):1428-1435.