Promoting Equity When Using the SNOT-22 Score: A Scoping Review and Literature Review

It is established that non-white people experience worse health outcomes than white people within the same population. Equity addresses differences between patient subgroups, allowing needs-based distribution of resources. The use of quality-of-life (QoL) tools to assist clinical decision making such as the SNOT-22 for chronic rhinosinusitis promotes equality, not equity, as quality-of-life (QoL) tools provide the same criteria of symptom scoring across diverse populations. We considered the effects of ethnicity and race on SNOT-22 scores and whether these scores should be adjusted to improve equity. PubMed and MEDLINE provided papers for a scoping review. A combination of the following search terms was used: patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) (OR) quality of life; (AND) race (OR) ethnicity (OR) disparities; (AND) otolaryngology (OR) SNOT-22 (OR) sinusitis. The first study identified no evidence of ethnic variability in SNOT-22 scores. However, the study did not represent the local population, including 86% white people. Other studies identified baseline SNOT-22 disparities with respect to population demographics, gender, and age. Ethnic differences appear to exist in acute sinusitis symptomatology. In other fields both within and outside of otorhinolaryngology, ethnic differences exist with regard to QoL tools. This scoping review identified a paucity of data in rhinology. However, evidence implies some form of correction to QoL scores could help promote equity for non-white patients.

Do patient-reported outcome measures measure up? A qualitative study to examine perceptions and experiences with heart failure proms among diverse, low-income patients

Background The Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) is a Patient-Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) used to evaluate the health status of patients with heart failure (HF) but has predominantly been tested in settings serving predominately white, male, and economically well-resourced populations. We sought to examine the acceptability of the shorter version of the KCCQ (KCCQ-12) among racially and ethnically diverse patients receiving care in an urban, safety-net setting. Methods We conducted cognitive interviews with a diverse population of patients with heart failure in a safety net system to assess their perceptions of the KCCQ-12. We conducted a thematic analysis of the qualitative data then mapped themes to the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation Model of Behavior framework. Results We interviewed 18 patients with heart failure and found that patients broadly endorsed the concepts of the KCCQ-12 with minor suggestions to improve the instrument’s content and appearance. Although patients accepted the KCCQ-12, we found that the instrument did not adequately measure aspects of health care and quality of life that patients identified as being important components of managing their heart failure. Patient-important factors of heart failure management coalesced into three main themes: social support, health care environment, and mental health. Conclusions Patients from this diverse, low-income, majority non-white population experience unique challenges and circumstances that impact their ability to manage disease. In this study, patients were receptive to the KCCQ-12 as a tool but perceived that it did not adequately capture key health components such as mental health and social relationships that deeply impact their ability to manage HF. Further study on the incorporation of social determinants of health into PROMs could make them more useful tools in evaluating and managing HF in diverse, underserved populations.