Disparities in the Use and Quality of Alcohol Treatment Services and Some Proposed Solutions to Narrow the Gap
Abstract
Objectives
This study assessed racial-ethnic disparities in access to high-quality treatment for at-risk drinking and alcohol abuse in the United States and simulated strategies to narrow the gap.
Methods
Longitudinal data collected in 2001–2002 and 2004–2005 from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions were analyzed to examine racial-ethnic disparities in receipt of alcohol interventions that were provided in primary care and specialty treatment settings and that met published clinical guidelines. The sample consisted of 9,116 respondents who met criteria for at-risk drinking or alcohol abuse in 2001–2002. Simulation analyses projected how disparities in treatment services utilization might change if clinical guidelines promoted access to care in more varied health and human service settings.
Results
Compared with whites, members of racial-ethnic minority groups had less than two-thirds the odds of receiving an alcohol intervention over the roughly four-year study period (odds ratio [OR]=.62, p<.05). This disparity increased after adjustment for socioeconomic confounders and frequency of heavy drinking (adjusted OR=.47, p=.003). The most pronounced disparities were between whites and U.S.-born and foreign-born Hispanics. Simulation analyses suggested that these disparities could be partially mitigated by extending care into nonmedical service venues.
Conclusions
Current efforts to extend evidence-based alcohol interventions into medical settings address an important need but are likely to increase racial-ethnic disparities in access to high-quality treatment. Partial solutions may be found in expanding the range and quality of alcohol-related services provided in alternative delivery sites, including faith-based and social service institutions.
Although excessive alcohol consumption is the third leading cause of preventable death in the United States (1), only 11% of the 17.9 million Americans with an alcohol use disorder will receive treatment during any given year (2). Those who do will receive care, on average, 20 years after the onset of heavy drinking (3). Thus there is a need for earlier intervention with the vast number of heavy drinkers in the general population, who are at risk for severe alcohol problems, morbidity, and mortality.
One reason for the large gap between need and receipt of formal treatment is that very few people with an alcohol disorder think they should seek professional help (4). Another reason is that the demand for treatment far outstrips the supply. Even among the nation’s model addiction programs, patients are often wait-listed for 17 to 28 days (5,6), and a long wait list can result in a 50% dropout rate before patients are even able to start treatment (7).
Both the lack of perceived need for treatment and the critical shortage of treatment slots are driving the current thrust of federal health policy to expand alcohol treatment beyond specialized settings and into mainstream medical care, particularly primary care (8–10). Backed by extensive data supporting the efficacy of primary care–based alcohol screening and brief intervention (11–15), the authors of the 2009 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) (H.R. 3590) included provisions to integrate evidence-based alcohol intervention within patient-centered medical homes. In addition, the 2008 Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (H.R. 6983) requires that health plans provide benefit levels for alcohol treatment services that are commensurate with coverage for other medical services (16,17). Further, private insurers, Medicaid, and Medicare have developed billing codes that reimburse primary care providers for delivering alcohol interventions (18,19).
Although these efforts hold promise for reducing the alcohol-related health burden in the overall population, they also raise a question about their impact on existing disparities in alcohol problems. With the exception of some Asian-American subgroups, in the United States racial-ethnic minorities are at greater risk of alcohol dependence symptoms, negative drinking consequences, and alcohol-related morbidity and mortality compared with whites (20–23). This might partly reflect racial disparities in access to and utilization of treatment for substance use disorders, but evidence of such disparities is modest, and even mixed (24–28).
There may be several reasons for the lack of significant treatment disparities. Individuals from racial-ethnic minority groups are more likely than whites to be mandated to addiction treatment by the criminal justice system, and this can have the effect of reducing disparities in treatment use (29,30). Another reason may be that treatment studies tend to focus only on the tip of the iceberg—people with severe and diagnosable alcohol problems, who are likely to experience serious personal troubles because of their drinking and to be pressured by spouses or partners, family, and friends to seek help. Both alcohol problem severity and social pressure can be strong motivators of treatment seeking (31,32), especially, perhaps, for racial-ethnic minorities, who are more likely to experience tangible consequences because of their drinking. Finally, health insurance coverage appears to play a lesser role in determining use of addiction treatment than use of other health-related services, possibly because specialty treatment is largely subsidized by public funding (33,34).
Nevertheless, mechanisms that increase access to and use of specialized treatment by racial-ethnic minority groups might not apply to the use of alcohol services in medical settings. Indeed, minorities may be less likely to access evidence-based treatment in primary care because of a lack of health insurance (35). Also, because alcohol screening and brief intervention in general medical settings is largely intended to prevent severe alcohol problems among at-risk and nondependent drinkers (8), legal coercion and social pressuring to receive these interventions seem less likely to occur.
In a prior study, we observed that African Americans and Hispanics with risky drinking and alcohol use disorders were less likely than comparable whites to obtain primary care services (36). (Native Americans and Asians were excluded from those analyses because of small numbers.) Therefore, a national effort to expand treatment through evidence-based alcohol interventions in primary care could introduce sizable racial differences in access to high-quality treatment services and ultimately increase the burden of alcohol problems in racial-ethnic minority groups. This study pursued this possibility further by examining disparities in the receipt of alcohol services. We conducted a stronger test of this hypothesis than in our earlier study by using longitudinal data to model the actual receipt of an alcohol intervention in primary care and specialty programs over a four-year time frame. We also examined how disparities in treatment receipt might be mitigated by expanding evidence-based alcohol intervention into alternative, nonmedical venues, such as churches and social services and family counseling agencies.
Methods
This analysis used data from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC), a nationally representative, longitudinal survey of U.S. adults residing in household and noninstitutional group quarters. Wave 1 data were collected from 43,093 respondents in 2001–2002, and Wave 2 data were collected from 34,653 respondents in 2004–2005, with a follow-up rate of 86.7% and a mean interval of roughly three years (36.6 months) between the two waves. The survey was administered through face-to-face, computer-assisted interviews. Approximately 16% of Hispanic respondents were interviewed in Spanish (37). Additional information on the study’s design is provided by Grant and colleagues (38).
This study analyzed data from the subset of Wave 1 respondents who met criteria for at-risk drinking or alcohol abuse in 2001–2002 (N=9,116), including a large majority (N=7,494, 82%) who were re-interviewed three years later at Wave 2. Alcohol-dependent drinkers were excluded because the policy that is the subject of this study—expanding treatment services by instituting alcohol screening and intervention in primary care—is not well-suited to treating dependent drinkers (8,39). Given our concern with potential disparities in access to high-quality alcohol services, the analysis was restricted to nondependent drinkers for whom these interventions have demonstrated effectiveness. The prospective, longitudinal design is an improvement over the more common approach of assessing lifetime treatment utilization, a method that precludes assessment of temporal ordering and can mask long delays in obtaining treatment.
Following guidelines of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), at-risk drinkers were defined as men who consumed more than four drinks in a day or more than 14 drinks in a week and women who consumed more than three drinks in a day or more than seven drinks in a week during the 12 months prior to baseline (8). Alcohol abuse was defined as the presence of at least one of four diagnostic criteria during the 12 months prior to baseline, including hazardous alcohol use, social problems, legal problems, or failure to fulfill important roles due to one’s drinking (40), and was assessed by using NIAAA’s Alcohol Use Disorder and Associated Disabilities Interview Schedule–DSM-IV (AUDADIS-IV).
Measures
The key outcome was receipt of an alcohol intervention during the 12 months prior to baseline or at any time during the three-year follow-up period between baseline and Wave 2. Our outcome measure was informed by NIAAA guidelines that are designed to promote best practices in screening, brief intervention, and referral to specialty treatment for people who are at-risk drinkers or have an alcohol use disorder (8). An alcohol intervention was defined as alcohol-related services provided by a physician or mental health clinician (doctor, psychiatrist, psychologist, or social worker) or a specialty treatment program (detoxification, outpatient, inpatient, rehabilitation facility, or therapeutic community or halfway house), the two recommended sources of alcohol treatment services. Alcohol-related services received in alternative settings (Alcoholics Anonymous, family services or social service agency, emergency department, crisis center, or employee assistance program) and from clergy were also examined in separate analyses.
Racial-ethnic group was categorized as non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black, foreign-born Hispanic, U.S.-born Hispanic, Asian American/Pacific Islander, and Native American. Because of limited numbers of respondents in some minority groups, racial-ethnic minorities were pooled for multivariate analyses. Selection of baseline covariates was informed by the extant literature and by preliminary analyses indicating significant, bivariate associations between minority status, the key outcome, or both. Final models adjusted for sex, age, education, income, health insurance, any prior lifetime alcohol intervention, and severity of need for alcohol intervention, including frequency of heavy drinking (defined as ≥5 drinks and ≥4 drinks in a day for men and women, respectively) and negative consequences of drinking (interpersonal, legal, and role-related problems).
Analysis
Differences in demographic characteristics and severity of need at Wave 1 among racial-ethnic groups were assessed by using chi square tests and t tests. To assess racial disparities in the receipt of an alcohol intervention, prospective analyses were conducted by using logistic regression models and adjusting for covariates. To assess whether expanding alcohol interventions into alternative service venues could potentially reduce racial disparities, logistic regression was used to estimate racial differences in services received from an expanded array of settings, including federally recommended clinical providers and specialty settings, as well as nonmedical providers where study participants reported receiving alcohol counseling. STATA, version 10, was used in all analyses to account for the complex survey design (41).
Results
The characteristics of the sample are shown in Table 1. Members of racial-ethnic minority groups constituted 23% of the overall sample, with African Americans representing roughly one-third of the minority sample, and U.S.-born and immigrant Hispanics each representing one-fourth. Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and Native Americans each made up an additional 9%. Compared with whites, members of minority groups were more likely to be male, younger, of lower socioeconomic status (less education and lower incomes), and without health insurance. Minority respondents were also more likely than whites to drink heavily on a weekly basis or more often and were two times more likely to experience negative drinking consequences.
Variable | White(N=5,897) | Minority(N=3,219) | F | df | p |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Demographic | |||||
Racial-ethnic minority group | |||||
African American | 32.1 | ||||
U.S.-born Hispanic | 25.1 | ||||
Immigrant Hispanic | 25.1 | ||||
Native American | 8.7 | ||||
Asian American or Pacific Islander | 8.9 | ||||
Male | 58.1 | 66.2 | 32.7 | 1, 65 | <.001 |
Age (M±SD) | 39.9±.2 | 35.4±.3 | –11.6b | <.001 | |
Education | 135.1 | 2.7, 173.4 | <.001 | ||
Less than high school graduate | 6.9 | 25.5 | |||
High school graduate | 27.9 | 27.4 | |||
Some college | 35.0 | 31.2 | |||
College graduate or higher | 30.2 | 15.9 | |||
Income | 102.8 | 2.9, 186.4 | <.001 | ||
<$20,000 | 15.4 | 31.1 | |||
$20,000–$40,000 | 23.8 | 30.1 | |||
$40,000–$60,000 | 20.2 | 17.7 | |||
>$60,000 | 40.6 | 21.1 | |||
Health insurance | 77.1 | 2.0, 128.9 | <.001 | ||
None | 16.4 | 32.3 | |||
Public | 13.2 | 14.3 | |||
Private | 70.4 | 53.4 | |||
Severity of need for alcohol intervention | |||||
At-risk drinker | 97.2 | 96.2 | 5.09 | 1, 65 | .027 |
Alcohol abuse | 20.4 | 19.7 | .41 | 1, 65 | .526 |
Frequency of heavy drinking | 6.40 | 2.9, 187.9 | <.001 | ||
Never | 12.3 | 11.9 | |||
Up to 11 times in the past year | 41.3 | 35.9 | |||
Monthly | 20.1 | 21.5 | |||
Weekly or more | 26.3 | 30.7 | |||
Negative consequences of drinkingc | 3.0 | 6.3 | 34.8 | 1, 65 | <.001 |
Alcohol intervention | |||||
Lifetimed | 5.7 | 5.3 | .43 | 1, 65 | .515 |
During the study periode | 2.1 | 1.3 | 4.51 | 1, 65 | .038 |
Medically based intervention only | 1.4 | .9 | 3.97 | 1, 65 | .051 |
Specialty treatment | 1.2 | .7 | 3.24 | 1, 65 | .077 |
Despite indications of greater need for alcohol services, as a group racial-ethnic minorities were less likely than whites to have received an alcohol intervention during the study period (Table 1). They also had two-thirds lower odds of receiving care (odds ratio [OR]=.62, p<.05) (Figure 1). Both African Americans and Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders had lower odds of receiving care relative to whites, although these results were not statistically significant. There were striking disparities between Hispanics and whites in the odds of receiving care (OR=.38, U.S.-born Hispanics, and OR=.13, foreign-born Hispanics, p<.05). By contrast, Native Americans had nearly two times the odds of receiving an alcohol intervention compared with whites, but this was nonsignificant because of the small number of Native Americans.
As Table 2 shows, after the analyses were adjusted for demographic characteristics and drinking-related variables, differences were found between minority groups and whites in the odds of receiving an alcohol intervention. In all cases, the disparity between minorities and whites not only persisted but increased after we took into account group differences in demographic characteristics, severity of need for treatment, and prior treatment history (p<.01 for all).
Model | OR | 95% CI | p |
---|---|---|---|
Unadjusted | .62 | .39–.98 | .039 |
1b | .46 | .28–.76 | .003 |
2c | .47 | .28–.77 | .003 |
3d | .43 | .26–.72 | .002 |
4e | .52 | .32–.85 | .009 |
5f | .48 | .28–.81 | .006 |
Given these disparities in services utilization, an important question for policy makers is whether evidence-based alcohol interventions should be extended beyond primary care into alternative settings and whether doing so might help to reduce these disparities. Figure 2 shows the percentage of minorities and whites who received alcohol counseling from an alternative provider. Not surprisingly, Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) was by far the most commonly reported venue among white and minority drinkers. But because AA serves persons with severe alcohol problems who are already trying to become clean and sober, it is more appropriate as a complement to primary care–based intervention and specialty treatment rather than as an alternative site for screening and brief intervention (8,42). Social service programs and clergy were the next most common sources of alcohol counseling. Members of racial-ethnic minority groups were nearly four times more likely than whites to receive alcohol counseling from clergy (p<.05). In addition, about 1%−2% of minorities and 3%−7% of whites received counseling from each of the following three sources: emergency departments, employee assistance programs, and crisis centers.
Table 3 presents the results of our analysis simulating the effects of expanding evidence-based alcohol intervention into alternative settings other than AA. Although for most groups the estimated disparity in the receipt of an alcohol intervention changed very little, the disparity between U.S.-born Hispanics and whites shrank by 39% after the expansion (OR=.38 before versus OR=.53 after the expansion), and the difference between the two groups in the odds of obtaining care was no longer statistically significant.
Without nonmedical providers | With nonmedical providers | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Racial-ethnic groupb | OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | Change inOR (%)c |
African American | .81 | .44–1.51 | .79 | .44–1.43 | 2.5 |
U.S.-born Hispanic | .38 | .15–.96* | .53 | .26–1.09 | –39.5 |
Immigrant Hispanic | .13 | .02–.95* | .15 | .03–.69* | –15.4 |
Asian American or Pacific Islander | .67 | .13–3.51 | .57 | .11–2.97 | 14.9 |
Native American | 1.96 | .87–4.41 | 1.83 | .86–3.88 | 6.6 |
Total | .62 | .39–.98* | .63 | .43–.93* | –1.6 |
Discussion
In this study we considered how widespread provision of evidence-based alcohol intervention in medical settings, especially primary care, might affect racial-ethnic disparities in access to high-quality alcohol services. The results showed that over the four-year study period, racial-ethnic minorities as a group had roughly half the odds compared with whites of receiving an alcohol intervention from primary care providers or specialty treatment programs. This suggests that federal efforts to promote routine alcohol screening and intervention in primary care might not benefit racial-ethnic groups equally. Indeed, such efforts could have the unintended consequence of increasing disparities in access to high-quality treatment and, ultimately, exacerbating disparities in alcohol problems.
The most striking disparities in the receipt of an alcohol intervention were between whites and U.S- and foreign-born Hispanics. This finding is consistent with the results of our previous study, which was based on the U.S. National Alcohol Survey, indicating that among at-risk and problem drinkers, Hispanics were far less likely than whites to obtain primary care (36). Notably, compared with other racial-ethnic groups, Hispanics have some of the highest rates of heavy drinking and alcohol dependence and have low rates of dependence remission (43–46). Therefore, it is important to ensure that Hispanics are provided access to high-quality, early intervention. This is especially true for U.S.-born Hispanics, whose rates of alcohol disorder significantly exceed those of immigrant Hispanics (37,47,48).
Although most efforts to expand alcohol services have focused on primary care settings, there is growing interest in a wider range of venues, ranging from hospital emergency departments and hospital wards to the criminal justice system and college settings (49). Our study results highlight the need to consider still other settings. Specifically, when our simulation analysis redefined the study outcome as the receipt of an alcohol intervention in primary care, specialty treatment, or nonmedical service setting, the disparity between U.S.-born Hispanics and whites was reduced and was no longer statistically significant.
Special consideration should be given to the role that social and family service agencies and clergy or faith-based organizations might play in promoting, linking, and providing evidence-based alcohol interventions to minority communities, given that these entities were common sources of alcohol counseling among minorities. Faith-based organizations have a long history of serving disadvantaged communities (50,51), and churches have become increasingly involved in health promotion and intervention in African-American and Latino communities (52). The commitment of faith-based institutions to improving the welfare of their communities, and the trust and respect felt toward these institutions (53), may be critical to linking underserved minority populations with high-quality alcohol interventions.
Reaching Hispanic immigrants might require special efforts in light of the formidable barriers they face, including lack of health insurance, fear of mistreatment and deportation, limited English proficiency, and logistical issues related to transportation and child care (54–58). Some health and social service agencies have successfully partnered with local bicultural and bilingual organizations to engage Hispanic immigrants in programs that address mental and general medical health. The success of these partnerships has been achieved partly through community building, enrichment, and social support activities that appeal to broader individual and family interests (59). Of note, the involvement of promotoras de salud—volunteers or paid lay health workers who are trusted members of the community or who have an unusually close understanding of the community served—has been vital to efforts to increase services utilization by Hispanic communities.
Several limitations should be considered when interpreting the results of this study. First, the very low rates of treatment utilization during the study period, combined with relatively small samples of racial-ethnic minority subgroups, required that we pool minority groups in multivariate analyses. Such sample size issues are common in research focused on racial disparities in treatment utilization and often are the reason that these types of analyses tend to focus on lifetime treatment use. However, analyses of lifetime treatment are associated with a different set of limitations, as noted above.
Another limitation of the study was the lack of data on the respondents’ primary language and language of interview, which precluded analysis of disparities among Hispanics by language. Spanish-speaking Hispanics are far less likely than English-speaking Hispanics to access health care services generally (60). Notably, a recent study found that among Hispanics, a preference for speaking Spanish and for socializing with other Hispanics predicted lower use of mental health services but was unrelated to alcohol or drug treatment utilization (61).
Third, the NESARC does not distinguish among primary care providers—in particular community health centers, which are a key source of health care for low-income and uninsured and underinsured racial-ethnic minorities (62). To the extent that evidence-based alcohol screening and intervention are integrated into routine care at community health clinics, these settings hold promise for mitigating disparities in treatment access and quality. Funding provided to federally qualified community health centers through the ACA might be instrumental in this regard (63). Further, increased insurance coverage under the ACA might also reduce disparities in access to medically based alcohol intervention. Yet this might depend on the presence of community health centers and their implementation of high-quality alcohol interventions. Even among persons with health insurance, in the absence of a neighborhood health clinic, racial disparities in the use of substance use treatment and other mental health services have been significant (64).
Finally, as noted above, this analysis included persons with diagnosable alcohol abuse but excluded those with alcohol dependence, given that primary care–based alcohol intervention appears to be less effective for the latter group. With the change to the DSM-5, alcohol abuse and dependence are no longer distinguished. Thus it is unclear how our study findings will be interpreted in light of the new diagnostic guidelines. But if lower utilization of alcohol treatment by minority groups is fundamentally related to logistical, attitudinal, and social barriers to primary care, it seems likely that racial disparities will persist.
Conclusions
It has recently been recognized that well-intentioned public health interventions might not benefit all segments of the general population, partly due to differential access to knowledge and health services (65–68). To offset the risk of unintended health disparities, policy makers must carefully consider how to develop and disseminate innovations to improve health in ways that increase, rather than detract from, health equity (69). This study suggests that widespread implementation of evidence-based alcohol screening and intervention in primary care settings is another example of an innovation that can improve overall population health while also, potentially, exacerbating alcohol-related disparities. Thus efforts to adapt, link, and disseminate these “state of the art” alcohol interventions to alternative, nonmedical service settings, particularly those utilized by Hispanics, may be warranted.
1 : Actual causes of death in the United States, 2000. JAMA 291:1238–1245, 2004Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
2 : Policy and practice implications of epidemiological surveys on co-occurring mental and substance use disorders. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 34:3–13, 2008Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
3 Length of time from first use to adult treatment admission. TEDS Report, Sept 29, 2001. Available at www.samhsa.gov/data/2k11/WEB_TEDS_026/WEB_TEDS_026.htmGoogle Scholar
4 : Perceived need for treatment for alcohol use disorders: results from two national surveys. Psychiatric Services 60:1618–1628, 2009Link, Google Scholar
5 : The Network for the Improvement of Addiction Treatment (NIATx): enhancing access and retention. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 88:138–145, 2007Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
6 : Replication and sustainability of improved access and retention within the Network for the Improvement of Addiction Treatment. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 98:63–69, 2008Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
7 McCarty D, McConnell KJ, Schmidt LA: Policies for the Treatment of Alcohol and Drug Use Disorders: A Research Agenda for 2010–2015. Greensboro, NC, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Substance Abuse Policy Research Program, 2009. Available at www.webcitation.org/69zNUAUoiGoogle Scholar
8 Helping Patients Who Drink Too Much: A Clinician's Guide. Rockville, Md, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 2005. Available at pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/Practitioner/CliniciansGuide2005/guide.pdfGoogle Scholar
9
10 : Improving care for the treatment of alcohol and drug disorders. Journal of Behavioral Health Services and Research 36:52–60, 2009Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
11 : Behavioral counseling interventions in primary care to reduce risky/harmful alcohol use by adults: a summary of the evidence for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Annals of Internal Medicine 140:557–568, 2004Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
12 : Brief interventions for hazardous drinkers delivered in primary care are equally effective in men and women. Addiction 99:103–108, 2004Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
13 : Efficacy of brief interventions for hazardous drinkers in primary care: systematic review and meta-analyses. Alcoholism, Clinical and Experimental Research 28:608–618, 2004Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
14 : Screening, brief interventions, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) for illicit drug and alcohol use at multiple healthcare sites: comparison at intake and 6 months later. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 99:280–295, 2009Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
15
16 Overview of the Affordable Care Act: what are the implications for behavioral health? SAMHSA News 18:May-June, 2010. Available at www.webcitation.org/69y5LtLwyGoogle Scholar
17 Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act. Rockville, Md, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2011. Accessed Aug 16, 2012. Available at www.webcitation.org/69y45E48YGoogle Scholar
18 Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT). Rockville, Md, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, 2012. Accessed Aug 9, 2011. Available at www.webcitation.org/60ovK0sCjGoogle Scholar
19 Coding for SBI Reimbursement. Rockville, Md, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2012. Accessed Aug 8, 2013. Available at www.samhsa.gov/prevention/sbirt/coding.aspxGoogle Scholar
20 : Predictors of increases in alcohol-related problems among black and white adults: results from the 1984 and 1992 National Alcohol Surveys. American Journal of Alcohol and Drug Abuse 23:281–299, 1997Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
21 : Disparities in alcohol-related problems among white, black, and Hispanic Americans. Alcoholism, Clinical and Experimental Research 33:654–662, 2009Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
22 Hilton J: Race and Ethnicity in Fatal Motor Vehicle Traffic Crashes 1999–2004. Washington, DC, US Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, National Center for Statistics and Analysis, 2006. Available at www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/809956.PDFGoogle Scholar
23 Yoon Y-H, Yi H-Y: Liver Cirrhosis Mortality in the United States, 1970–2004. Surveillance Report 79. Rockville, Md, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 2007Google Scholar
24 : Use of specialty substance abuse and mental health services in adults with substance use disorders in the community. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 78:345–354, 2005Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
25 : Racial/ethnic disparities in service utilization for individuals with co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders in the general population: results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 69:1112–1121, 2008Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
26 : Service utilization differences for axis I psychiatric and substance use disorders between white and black adults. Psychiatric Services 59:893–901, 2008Link, Google Scholar
27 : Ethnic disparities in clinical severity and services for alcohol problems: results from the National Alcohol Survey. Alcoholism, Clinical and Experimental Research 31:48–56, 2007Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
28 : Trends in alcohol services utilization from 1991–1992 to 2001–2002: ethnic group differences in the US population. Alcoholism, Clinical and Experimental Research 35:1485–1497, 2011Medline, Google Scholar
29 : Relationship and institutional pressure to enter treatment: differences by demographics, problem severity, and motivation. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs 68:428–436, 2007Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
30 : Racial-ethnic disparities in substance abuse treatment: the role of criminal history and socioeconomic status. Psychiatric Services 62:1273–1281, 2011Link, Google Scholar
31 : Reasons for drinking less and their relationship to sustained remission from problem drinking. Addiction 100:1637–1646, 2005Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
32 : Sources of informal pressure on problematic drinkers to cut down or seek treatment. Journal of Substance Use 9:280–295, 2004Crossref, Google Scholar
33 : Unequal treatment: racial and ethnic disparities in alcoholism treatment services. Alcohol Research and Health 29:49–54, 2006Google Scholar
34 : Who goes to alcohol and drug treatment? Understanding utilization within the context of insurance. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 63:673–682, 2002Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
35 : Alcohol: equity and social determinants; in Equity, Social Determinants and Public Health Programmes. Edited by Blas EKurup AS. Geneva, World Health Organization, 2010Google Scholar
36 : Preventing disparities in alcohol screening and brief intervention: the need to move beyond primary care. Alcoholism, Clinical and Experimental Research 35:1557–1560, 2011Medline, Google Scholar
37 : Immigration and lifetime prevalence of DSM-IV psychiatric disorders among Mexican Americans and non-Hispanic whites in the United States: results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. Archives of General Psychiatry 61:1226–1233, 2004Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
38 : Sociodemographic and psychopathologic predictors of first incidence of DSM-IV substance use, mood and anxiety disorders: results from the Wave 2 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. Molecular Psychiatry 14:1051–1066, 2009Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
39 : Alcohol screening and brief intervention in primary care: absence of evidence for efficacy in people with dependence or very heavy drinking. Drug and Alcohol Review 29:631–640, 2010Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
40 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed. Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Association, 1994Google Scholar
41 Stata Statistical Software: release 10.0. College Station, Tex, Stata, 2007Google Scholar
42 : The past and future of research on treatment of alcohol dependence. Alcohol Research and Health 33:55–63, 2010Google Scholar
43 : Ethnicity and health disparities in alcohol research. Alcohol Research and Health 33:152–160, 2010Google Scholar
44 : Race/ethnic differences in the prevalence and co-occurrence of substance use disorders and independent mood and anxiety disorders: results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. Psychological Medicine 36:987–998, 2006Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
45 : Recovery from DSM-IV alcohol dependence: United States, 2001–2002. Addiction 100:281–292, 2005Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
46 : Age and ethnic differences in the onset, persistence and recurrence of alcohol use disorder. Addiction 107:756–765, 2012Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
47 : Acculturation and lifetime prevalence of psychiatric disorders among Mexican Americans in Los Angeles. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 28:89–102, 1987Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
48 : Nativity and DSM-IV psychiatric disorders among Puerto Ricans, Cuban Americans, and non-Latino whites in the United States: results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 67:56–65, 2006Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
49 Brief interventions. Alcohol Alert 66:1–8, 2005. Available at pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/AA66/AA66.pdfGoogle Scholar
50 : Faith-based organizations, science, and the pursuit of health. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved 22:50–55, 2011Medline, Google Scholar
51 : A methodological review of faith-based health promotion literature: advancing the science to expand delivery of diabetes education to black Americans. Journal of Religion and Health 51:1075–1097, 2012Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
52 : Health programs in faith-based organizations: are they effective? American Journal of Public Health 94:1030–1036, 2004Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
53 Nordtvedt M, Chapman LS: Health promotion in faith-based institutions and communities. American Journal of Health Promotion 25:TAHP1–12, 2011. Available at ajhpcontents.org/doi/abs/10.4278/ajhp.25.4.tahpGoogle Scholar
54 : Strangers in a strange land: health care experiences for recent Latino immigrants in Midwest communities. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved 19:1350–1367, 2008Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
55 : Barriers to health promotion and disease prevention in the Latino population. Clinical Cornerstone 6:16–26, 2004Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
56 : A faith-based physical activity intervention for Latinos: outcomes and lessons. American Journal of Health Promotion 25:168–171, 2011Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
57 : Medical home disparities for Latino children by parental language of interview. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved 22:1151–1166, 2011Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
58 : Policy barriers to health care access fuel discriminatory treatment: the role of promotoras in overcoming malos tratos. Journal of Ambulatory Care Management 35:2–14, 2012Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
59 Glasnapp JD: Promising Practices in Mental Health Care Programs: A Look at the California Endowment's Agricultural Worker Health Program Request for Proposal Grantees. Los Angeles, California Endowment, 2004. Available at www.webcitation.org/6GFMMfoD7Google Scholar
60 : Hispanic Patients' Double Burden: Lack of Health Insurance and Limited English. New York, Commonwealth Fund, 2003Google Scholar
61 : Mental health service utilization for psychiatric disorders among Latinos living in the United States: the role of ethnic subgroup, ethnic identity, and language/social preferences. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 47:383–394, 2012Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
62 Doty MM, Abrams MK, Hernandez SE, et al: Enhancing the Capacity of Community Health Centers to Achieve High Performance: Findings From the 2009 Commonwealth Fund National Survey of Federally Qualified Health Centers. New York, Commonwealth Fund, 2010. Available at www.webcitation.org/6GFGg5jx1Google Scholar
63 : Health care reform and integrated care: a golden opportunity for preventive psychiatry. Psychiatric Services 63:1231–1233, 2012Link, Google Scholar
64 : The impact of insurance coverage in diminishing racial and ethnic disparities in behavioral health services. Health Services Research 47:1322–1344, 2012Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
65 : Epidemiological sociology and the social shaping of population health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 49:367–384, 2008Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
66 : Transcending the known in public health practice: the inequality paradox: the population approach and vulnerable populations. American Journal of Public Health 98:216–221, 2008Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
67 : Will cardiovascular disease prevention widen health inequalities? PLoS Medicine 7:e1000320, 2010Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
68 : What types of interventions generate inequalities? Evidence from systematic reviews. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 67:190–193, 2013Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
69 : Socioeconomic inequalities in the diffusion of health technology: uptake of coronary procedures as an example. Social Science and Medicine 72:224–229, 2011Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar