Suchergebnisse

OBJECTIVE: To examine experiences of racial/ethnic discrimination among Latinos in the United States, which broadly contribute to their poor health outcomes. DATA SOURCE AND STUDY DESIGN: Data come from a nationally representative, probability‐based telephone survey including 803 Latinos and a comparison group of 902 non‐Hispanic white US adults, conducted January—April 2017. METHODS: We calculated the percent of Latinos reporting discrimination in several domains, including health care. We used logistic regression to compare the Latino‐white difference in odds of discrimination, and among Latinos only to examine variation by socioeconomic status and country of birth. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: One in five Latinos (20 percent) reported experiencing discrimination in clinical encounters, while 17 percent avoided seeking health care for themselves or family members due to anticipated discrimination. A notable share of Latinos also reported experiencing discrimination with employment (33 percent applying for jobs; 32 percent obtaining equal pay/promotions), housing (31 percent), and police interactions (27 percent). In adjusted models, Latinos had significantly higher odds than whites for reporting discrimination in health care visits (OR: 3.18, 95% CI: 1.61, 6.26) and across several other domains. Latinos with college degrees had significantly higher odds of reporting discrimination in multiple domains than those without college degrees, with few differences between foreign‐born and US‐born Latinos. CONCLUSIONS: Latinos in the United States report experiencing widespread discrimination in health care and other areas of their lives, at significantly higher levels than whites. Being born in the United States and earning a college degree are not protective against discrimination, suggesting that further health and social policy efforts to eliminate discrimination are needed.

OBJECTIVE: To examine reported experiences of discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) adults in the United States, which broadly contribute to poor health outcomes. DATA SOURCE AND STUDY DESIGN: Data came from a national, probability‐based telephone survey of US adults, including 489 LGBTQ adults (282 non‐Hispanic whites and 201 racial/ethnic minorities), conducted January‐April 2017. METHODS: We calculated the percentages of LGBTQ adults reporting experiences of discrimination in health care and several other domains related to their sexual orientation and, for transgender adults, gender identity. We report these results overall, by race/ethnicity, and among transgender adults only. We used multivariable models to estimate adjusted odds of discrimination between racial/ethnic minority and white LGBTQ respondents. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Experiences of interpersonal discrimination were common for LGBTQ adults, including slurs (57 percent), microaggressions (53 percent), sexual harassment (51 percent), violence (51 percent), and harassment regarding bathroom use (34 percent). More than one in six LGBTQ adults also reported avoiding health care due to anticipated discrimination (18 percent), including 22 percent of transgender adults, while 16 percent of LGBTQ adults reported discrimination in health care encounters. LGBTQ racial/ethnic minorities had statistically significantly higher odds than whites in reporting discrimination based on their LGBTQ identity when applying for jobs, when trying to vote or participate in politics, and interacting with the legal system CONCLUSIONS: Discrimination is widely experienced by LGBTQ adults across health care and other domains, especially among racial/ethnic minorities. Policy and programmatic efforts are needed to reduce these negative experiences and their health impact on sexual and/or gender minority adults, particularly those who experience compounded forms of discrimination.

OBJECTIVE: To examine reported racial discrimination and harassment against Native Americans, which broadly contribute to poor health outcomes. DATA SOURCE AND STUDY DESIGN: Data come from a nationally representative, probability‐based telephone survey including 342 Native American and 902 white US adults, conducted January‐April 2017. METHODS: We calculated the percent of Native Americans reporting discrimination in several domains, including health care. We used logistic regression to compare the Native American‐white difference in odds of discrimination and conducted exploratory analyses among Native Americans only to examine variation by socioeconomic and geographic/neighborhood characteristics. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: More than one in five Native Americans (23 percent) reported experiencing discrimination in clinical encounters, while 15 percent avoided seeking health care for themselves or family members due to anticipated discrimination. A notable share of Native Americans also reported they or family members have experienced violence (38 percent) or have been threatened or harassed (34 percent). In adjusted models, Native Americans had higher odds than whites of reporting discrimination across several domains, including health care and interactions with the police/courts. In exploratory analyses, the association between geographic/neighborhood characteristics and discrimination among Native Americans was mixed. CONCLUSIONS: Discrimination and harassment are widely reported by Native Americans across multiple domains of their lives, regardless of geographic or neighborhood context. Native Americans report major disparities compared to whites in fair treatment by institutions, particularly with health care and police/courts. Results suggest modern forms of discrimination and harassment against Native Americans are systemic and untreated problems.

OBJECTIVE: To examine experiences of racial discrimination among black adults in the United States, which broadly contribute to their poor health outcomes. DATA SOURCE AND STUDY DESIGN: Data come from a nationally representative, probability‐based telephone survey including 802 non‐Hispanic black and a comparison group of 902 non‐Hispanic white US adults, conducted January–April 2017. METHODS: We calculated the percent of blacks reporting discrimination in several domains, including health care. We used logistic regression to compare the black‐white difference in odds of discrimination, and among blacks only to examine variation by socioeconomic status, gender, and neighborhood racial composition. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: About one‐third of blacks (32 percent) reported experiencing discrimination in clinical encounters, while 22 percent avoided seeking health care for themselves or family members due to anticipated discrimination. A majority of black adults reported experiencing discrimination in employment (57 percent in obtaining equal pay/promotions; 56 percent in applying for jobs), police interactions (60 percent reported being stopped/unfairly treated by police), and hearing microaggressions (52 percent) and racial slurs (51 percent). In adjusted models, blacks had significantly higher odds than whites of reporting discrimination in every domain. Among blacks, having a college degree was associated with higher odds of experiencing overall institutional discrimination. CONCLUSIONS: The extent of reported discrimination across several areas of life suggests a broad pattern of discrimination against blacks in America, beyond isolated experiences. Black‐white disparities exist on nearly all dimensions of experiences with public and private institutions, including health care and the police. Evidence of systemic discrimination suggests a need for more active institutional interventions to address racism in policy and practice.

Confidence in American government has been declining for three decades. Three-quarters of Americans said they trusted the Federal government to do the right thing in 1964. Today, only a quarter do. Why the decline? Is this mistrust a healthy reflection of America's long-lasting skepticism of a strong state? Is mistrust a problem for the future of governance? Bringing together essays by leading Harvard scholars, this book explores the roots of mistrust. It first examines government's current scope, its actual performance, and citizens' perceptions of its performance. It then assesses many possible explanations that have been offered for the decline of trust, including the end of the Cold War, elevated expectations following World War II, a weakened economy, the effects of globalization, resentment over political scandals, and incompetence of bureaucrats. The book clarifies thinking about the sources of public disaffection. Mistrust, the contributors find, is largely unrelated to national economic conditions, to challenges of a global economy, to the Cold War, or to bumbling bureaucrats and venal politicians. Rather, they show that the most likely culprits are all around us—an interacting blend of cultural and political conflicts stirred by an increasingly corrosive news media