Racial biases in healthcare: Examining the contributions of Point of Care tools and unintended practitioner bias to patient treatment and diagnosis.

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Health Pub Date : 2023-09-01 DOI:10.1177/13634593211061215
Sachil Singh
{"title":"Racial biases in healthcare: Examining the contributions of Point of Care tools and unintended practitioner bias to patient treatment and diagnosis.","authors":"Sachil Singh","doi":"10.1177/13634593211061215","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Sophisticated algorithms are used daily to search through hundreds of medical journals in order to package updated medical insights into commercial databases. Healthcare practitioners can access these searchable databases-called Point of Care (PoC) tools-as downloadable apps on their smartphones or tablets to comprehensively and efficiently inform patient diagnosis and treatment. Because racist biases are unintentionally incorporated into the search reports that the companies generate and that practitioners regularly access, the aim of this article is to examine how healthcare practitioners' \"pre-existing\" racial stereotypes interact with pithy conclusions about race and ethnicity in PoC tools. I use qualitative research methods (content analysis, discourse analysis, open-ended semi-structured interviews, and role play) to frame the analysis within the Public Health Critical Race Praxis (PHCRP). This approach facilitates an understanding of how biological racism-the use of scientific evidence to support inherent differences between races-that is embedded in PoC algorithms informs a practitioner's assessment of a patient, and converges with persistent racial bias in medical training, medical research and healthcare. I contextualize the study with one semi-structured interview with an Editor of a leading PoC tool, MedScope (pseudonomized), and 10 semi-structured interviews with healthcare practitioners in S.E. Ontario, Canada. The article concludes that PoC tools and practitioners' personal biases contribute to racial prejudices in healthcare provision. This warrants further research on racial bias in medical literature and curriculum design in medical school.</p>","PeriodicalId":12944,"journal":{"name":"Health","volume":"27 5","pages":"829-846"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10423434/pdf/","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13634593211061215","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Sophisticated algorithms are used daily to search through hundreds of medical journals in order to package updated medical insights into commercial databases. Healthcare practitioners can access these searchable databases-called Point of Care (PoC) tools-as downloadable apps on their smartphones or tablets to comprehensively and efficiently inform patient diagnosis and treatment. Because racist biases are unintentionally incorporated into the search reports that the companies generate and that practitioners regularly access, the aim of this article is to examine how healthcare practitioners' "pre-existing" racial stereotypes interact with pithy conclusions about race and ethnicity in PoC tools. I use qualitative research methods (content analysis, discourse analysis, open-ended semi-structured interviews, and role play) to frame the analysis within the Public Health Critical Race Praxis (PHCRP). This approach facilitates an understanding of how biological racism-the use of scientific evidence to support inherent differences between races-that is embedded in PoC algorithms informs a practitioner's assessment of a patient, and converges with persistent racial bias in medical training, medical research and healthcare. I contextualize the study with one semi-structured interview with an Editor of a leading PoC tool, MedScope (pseudonomized), and 10 semi-structured interviews with healthcare practitioners in S.E. Ontario, Canada. The article concludes that PoC tools and practitioners' personal biases contribute to racial prejudices in healthcare provision. This warrants further research on racial bias in medical literature and curriculum design in medical school.

Abstract Image

医疗保健中的种族偏见:检查护理点工具和无意的从业者偏见对患者治疗和诊断的贡献。
每天都要使用复杂的算法来搜索数百种医学期刊,以便将最新的医学见解打包到商业数据库中。医疗保健从业者可以在智能手机或平板电脑上以可下载应用程序的形式访问这些可搜索的数据库(称为护理点(PoC)工具),从而全面有效地为患者提供诊断和治疗信息。由于种族主义偏见无意中被纳入公司生成的搜索报告和从业者经常访问的搜索报告中,本文的目的是研究医疗保健从业者的“预先存在的”种族刻板印象如何与PoC工具中关于种族和民族的简洁结论相互作用。我使用定性研究方法(内容分析,话语分析,开放式半结构化访谈和角色扮演)来构建公共卫生关键种族实践(PHCRP)中的分析。这种方法有助于理解嵌入在PoC算法中的生物种族主义——利用科学证据来支持种族之间的内在差异——如何影响从业者对患者的评估,并与医学培训、医学研究和医疗保健中持续存在的种族偏见融合在一起。我将研究背景化为对领先PoC工具MedScope(假名化)编辑的一次半结构化访谈,以及对加拿大南安大略省医疗保健从业人员的10次半结构化访谈。文章的结论是,PoC工具和从业者的个人偏见有助于在医疗保健提供种族偏见。这需要进一步研究医学文献中的种族偏见和医学院的课程设计。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Health
Health Multiple-
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Health: is published four times per year and attempts in each number to offer a mix of articles that inform or that provoke debate. The readership of the journal is wide and drawn from different disciplines and from workers both inside and outside the health care professions. Widely abstracted, Health: ensures authors an extensive and informed readership for their work. It also seeks to offer authors as short a delay as possible between submission and publication. Most articles are reviewed within 4-6 weeks of submission and those accepted are published within a year of that decision.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信