{"title":"Inclusive data practices: disaggregating race and assessing comorbidities among American Indian and Alaska Native individuals in PRAMS.","authors":"Micah Hartwell, KayLeigh Noblin, Jasha Lyons Echo-Hawk, Ashton Gatewood, Amy D Hendrix-Dicken","doi":"10.1080/13557858.2025.2525796","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>To assess potential misclassification or exclusion of American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) individuals within the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS) Phase 8, we compared differences between aggregated and self-reported race variables and their impact on maternal comorbidities.</p><p><strong>Methods/design: </strong>We utilized several CDC-provided ethnoracial identity variables alongside a disaggregated variable we created. We then estimated comorbidity prevalences between these groupings to determine the impact of these methodological differences.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>PRAMS variables, <i>MRACE_AMI</i> and <i>MAT_RACE_PU</i>, included 13,341 (no distinction between AI and AN) and 7,494 AI (excluded AN altogether), respectively. Our constructed variable (n = 13,383) included 19 ethnoracial-subgroups and 42 tribal members not selecting AI/AN race. We found significant differences in the prevalence of comorbidities by these variables. For instance, the prevalence for diabetes with <i>MAT_RACE_PU</i> was 4.93%, with <i>MRACE_AMI</i> was 4.04%, but our subgroup <i>AI (alone)</i> was 5.46%, and <i>AN (alone)</i> was 1.37%.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our results highlight significant disparities in maternal comorbidities among AI/AN women when different racial classification strategies are employed. Disaggregating these data revealed differences that are crucial for understanding the unique health challenges faced by various subgroups.</p>","PeriodicalId":51038,"journal":{"name":"Ethnicity & Health","volume":" ","pages":"718-731"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12240471/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethnicity & Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13557858.2025.2525796","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHNIC STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Importance: To assess potential misclassification or exclusion of American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) individuals within the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS) Phase 8, we compared differences between aggregated and self-reported race variables and their impact on maternal comorbidities.
Methods/design: We utilized several CDC-provided ethnoracial identity variables alongside a disaggregated variable we created. We then estimated comorbidity prevalences between these groupings to determine the impact of these methodological differences.
Results: PRAMS variables, MRACE_AMI and MAT_RACE_PU, included 13,341 (no distinction between AI and AN) and 7,494 AI (excluded AN altogether), respectively. Our constructed variable (n = 13,383) included 19 ethnoracial-subgroups and 42 tribal members not selecting AI/AN race. We found significant differences in the prevalence of comorbidities by these variables. For instance, the prevalence for diabetes with MAT_RACE_PU was 4.93%, with MRACE_AMI was 4.04%, but our subgroup AI (alone) was 5.46%, and AN (alone) was 1.37%.
Conclusion: Our results highlight significant disparities in maternal comorbidities among AI/AN women when different racial classification strategies are employed. Disaggregating these data revealed differences that are crucial for understanding the unique health challenges faced by various subgroups.
期刊介绍:
Ethnicity & Health
is an international academic journal designed to meet the world-wide interest in the health of ethnic groups. It embraces original papers from the full range of disciplines concerned with investigating the relationship between ’ethnicity’ and ’health’ (including medicine and nursing, public health, epidemiology, social sciences, population sciences, and statistics). The journal also covers issues of culture, religion, gender, class, migration, lifestyle and racism, in so far as they relate to health and its anthropological and social aspects.