Naming racism as a root cause of inequities in palliative care research: a scoping review.

IF 2.5 2区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Kavita Algu, Joshua Wales, Michael Anderson, Mariam Omilabu, Thandi Briggs, Allison M Kurahashi
{"title":"Naming racism as a root cause of inequities in palliative care research: a scoping review.","authors":"Kavita Algu, Joshua Wales, Michael Anderson, Mariam Omilabu, Thandi Briggs, Allison M Kurahashi","doi":"10.1186/s12904-024-01465-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Racial and ethnic inequities in palliative care are well-established. The way researchers design and interpret studies investigating race- and ethnicity-based disparities has future implications on the interventions aimed to reduce these inequities. If racism is not discussed when contextualizing findings, it is less likely to be addressed and inequities will persist.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To summarize the characteristics of 12 years of academic literature that investigates race- or ethnicity-based disparities in palliative care access, outcomes and experiences, and determine the extent to which racism is discussed when interpreting findings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Following Arksey & O'Malley's methodology for scoping reviews, we searched bibliographic databases for primary, peer reviewed studies globally, in all languages, that collected race or ethnicity variables in a palliative care context (January 1, 2011 to October 17, 2023). We recorded study characteristics and categorized citations based on their research focus-whether race or ethnicity were examined as a major focus (analyzed as a primary independent variable or population of interest) or minor focus (analyzed as a secondary variable) of the research purpose, and the interpretation of findings-whether authors directly or indirectly discussed racism when contextualizing the study results.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 3000 citations and included 181 in our review. Of these, most were from the United States (88.95%) and examined race or ethnicity as a major focus (71.27%). When interpreting findings, authors directly named racism in 7.18% of publications. They were more likely to use words closely associated with racism (20.44%) or describe systemic or individual factors (41.44%). Racism was directly named in 33.33% of articles published since 2021 versus 3.92% in the 10 years prior, suggesting it is becoming more common.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While the focus on race and ethnicity in palliative care research is increasing, there is room for improvement when acknowledging systemic factors - including racism - during data analysis. Researchers must be purposeful when investigating race and ethnicity, and identify how racism shapes palliative care access, outcomes and experiences of racially and ethnically minoritized patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":48945,"journal":{"name":"BMC Palliative Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11163751/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Palliative Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12904-024-01465-9","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Racial and ethnic inequities in palliative care are well-established. The way researchers design and interpret studies investigating race- and ethnicity-based disparities has future implications on the interventions aimed to reduce these inequities. If racism is not discussed when contextualizing findings, it is less likely to be addressed and inequities will persist.

Objective: To summarize the characteristics of 12 years of academic literature that investigates race- or ethnicity-based disparities in palliative care access, outcomes and experiences, and determine the extent to which racism is discussed when interpreting findings.

Methods: Following Arksey & O'Malley's methodology for scoping reviews, we searched bibliographic databases for primary, peer reviewed studies globally, in all languages, that collected race or ethnicity variables in a palliative care context (January 1, 2011 to October 17, 2023). We recorded study characteristics and categorized citations based on their research focus-whether race or ethnicity were examined as a major focus (analyzed as a primary independent variable or population of interest) or minor focus (analyzed as a secondary variable) of the research purpose, and the interpretation of findings-whether authors directly or indirectly discussed racism when contextualizing the study results.

Results: We identified 3000 citations and included 181 in our review. Of these, most were from the United States (88.95%) and examined race or ethnicity as a major focus (71.27%). When interpreting findings, authors directly named racism in 7.18% of publications. They were more likely to use words closely associated with racism (20.44%) or describe systemic or individual factors (41.44%). Racism was directly named in 33.33% of articles published since 2021 versus 3.92% in the 10 years prior, suggesting it is becoming more common.

Conclusion: While the focus on race and ethnicity in palliative care research is increasing, there is room for improvement when acknowledging systemic factors - including racism - during data analysis. Researchers must be purposeful when investigating race and ethnicity, and identify how racism shapes palliative care access, outcomes and experiences of racially and ethnically minoritized patients.

将种族主义列为姑息关怀研究中不公平现象的根源:范围界定综述。
背景:姑息关怀中的种族和民族不平等已得到公认。研究人员设计和解释调查种族和民族差异的研究的方式对旨在减少这些不公平现象的干预措施有影响。如果在对研究结果进行背景分析时不讨论种族主义问题,那么种族主义问题就不太可能得到解决,不公平现象也将持续存在:总结12年来研究姑息关怀的获取、结果和体验中基于种族或民族的差异的学术文献的特点,并确定在解释研究结果时讨论种族主义的程度:按照 Arksey & O'Malley 的范围界定综述方法,我们在文献数据库中搜索了全球范围内收集姑息关怀背景下种族或民族变量的所有语言的主要同行评审研究(2011 年 1 月 1 日至 2023 年 10 月 17 日)。我们记录了研究特征,并根据研究重点--种族或民族是否作为研究目的的主要重点(作为主要自变量或关注人群进行分析)或次要重点(作为次要变量进行分析),以及研究结果的解释--作者在对研究结果进行背景分析时是否直接或间接讨论了种族主义--对引文进行了分类:我们确定了 3000 篇引文,并将 181 篇纳入了审查范围。其中,大部分来自美国(88.95%),以种族或民族为主要研究对象(71.27%)。在解释研究结果时,7.18%的出版物的作者直接提到了种族主义。他们更倾向于使用与种族主义密切相关的词语(20.44%)或描述系统或个人因素(41.44%)。2021 年以来发表的文章中有 33.33% 直接提到了种族主义,而之前 10 年中只有 3.92%,这表明种族主义正变得越来越普遍:虽然姑息关怀研究中对种族和民族的关注度在不断提高,但在数据分析过程中承认包括种族主义在内的系统性因素仍有改进的余地。研究人员在调查种族和民族问题时必须有目的性,并明确种族主义如何影响姑息关怀的获取、结果以及种族和民族少数化患者的经历。
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
BMC Palliative Care
BMC Palliative Care HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
9.70%
发文量
201
审稿时长
21 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Palliative Care is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in the clinical, scientific, ethical and policy issues, local and international, regarding all aspects of hospice and palliative care for the dying and for those with profound suffering related to chronic illness.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
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