"We adjusted for race": now what? A systematic review of utilization and reporting of race in American Journal of Epidemiology and Epidemiology, 2020-2021.

IF 5.2 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Monica E Swilley-Martinez, Serita A Coles, Vanessa E Miller, Ishrat Z Alam, Kate Vinita Fitch, Theresa H Cruz, Bernadette Hohl, Regan Murray, Shabbar I Ranapurwala
{"title":"\"We adjusted for race\": now what? A systematic review of utilization and reporting of race in American Journal of Epidemiology and Epidemiology, 2020-2021.","authors":"Monica E Swilley-Martinez, Serita A Coles, Vanessa E Miller, Ishrat Z Alam, Kate Vinita Fitch, Theresa H Cruz, Bernadette Hohl, Regan Murray, Shabbar I Ranapurwala","doi":"10.1093/epirev/mxad010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Race is a social construct, commonly used in epidemiologic research to adjust for confounding. However, adjustment of race may mask racial disparities, thereby perpetuating structural racism. We conducted a systematic review of articles published in Epidemiology and American Journal of Epidemiology between 2020 and 2021 to (1) understand how race, ethnicity, and similar social constructs were operationalized, used, and reported; and (2) characterize good and poor practices of utilization and reporting of race data on the basis of the extent to which they reveal or mask systemic racism. Original research articles were considered for full review and data extraction if race data were used in the study analysis. We extracted how race was categorized, used-as a descriptor, confounder, or for effect measure modification (EMM)-and reported if the authors discussed racial disparities and systemic bias-related mechanisms responsible for perpetuating the disparities. Of the 561 articles, 299 had race data available and 192 (34.2%) used race data in analyses. Among the 160 US-based studies, 81 different racial categorizations were used. Race was most often used as a confounder (52%), followed by effect measure modifier (33%), and descriptive variable (12%). Fewer than 1 in 4 articles (22.9%) exhibited good practices (EMM along with discussing disparities and mechanisms), 63.5% of the articles exhibited poor practices (confounding only or not discussing mechanisms), and 13.5% were considered neither poor nor good practices. We discuss implications and provide 13 recommendations for operationalization, utilization, and reporting of race in epidemiologic and public health research.</p>","PeriodicalId":50510,"journal":{"name":"Epidemiologic Reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epidemiologic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/epirev/mxad010","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Race is a social construct, commonly used in epidemiologic research to adjust for confounding. However, adjustment of race may mask racial disparities, thereby perpetuating structural racism. We conducted a systematic review of articles published in Epidemiology and American Journal of Epidemiology between 2020 and 2021 to (1) understand how race, ethnicity, and similar social constructs were operationalized, used, and reported; and (2) characterize good and poor practices of utilization and reporting of race data on the basis of the extent to which they reveal or mask systemic racism. Original research articles were considered for full review and data extraction if race data were used in the study analysis. We extracted how race was categorized, used-as a descriptor, confounder, or for effect measure modification (EMM)-and reported if the authors discussed racial disparities and systemic bias-related mechanisms responsible for perpetuating the disparities. Of the 561 articles, 299 had race data available and 192 (34.2%) used race data in analyses. Among the 160 US-based studies, 81 different racial categorizations were used. Race was most often used as a confounder (52%), followed by effect measure modifier (33%), and descriptive variable (12%). Fewer than 1 in 4 articles (22.9%) exhibited good practices (EMM along with discussing disparities and mechanisms), 63.5% of the articles exhibited poor practices (confounding only or not discussing mechanisms), and 13.5% were considered neither poor nor good practices. We discuss implications and provide 13 recommendations for operationalization, utilization, and reporting of race in epidemiologic and public health research.

“我们根据种族进行了调整”现在是什么:2020-2021年AJE和流行病学中种族利用和报告的系统综述。
种族是一种社会结构,在流行病学研究中常用来调整混杂因素。然而,种族调整可能掩盖种族差异,从而使结构性种族主义长期存在。我们对2020年至2021年间发表在《流行病学》和《美国流行病学杂志》上的文章进行了系统回顾,以1)了解种族、族裔和类似的社会结构是如何运作、利用和报告的;2)根据种族数据揭示或掩盖系统性种族主义的程度,描述种族数据利用和报告方面的良好和不良做法。如果在研究分析中使用种族数据,则考虑对原始研究文章进行全面审查和数据提取。我们提取了种族是如何分类的;用作描述符、混杂因素或用于效果测量修改(EMM);并报告——如果作者讨论了种族差异和导致差异长期存在的系统性偏见相关机制。在561篇文章中,299篇有可用的种族数据,192篇(34.2%)在分析中使用了种族数据。在160项基于美国的研究中,使用了81种不同的种族分类。种族最常被用作混杂因素(52%),其次是效应测量修饰语(33%)和描述性变量(12%)。不到四分之一的文章(22.9%)表现出良好的实践(EMM以及讨论差异和机制),63.5%的文章表现出较差的实践(仅混淆或不讨论机制),13.5%的文章被认为既不差也不好。我们讨论了种族在流行病学和公共卫生研究中的应用、利用和报告的影响,并提出了13条建议。
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
Epidemiologic Reviews
Epidemiologic Reviews 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
8.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
期刊介绍: Epidemiologic Reviews is a leading review journal in public health. Published once a year, issues collect review articles on a particular subject. Recent issues have focused on The Obesity Epidemic, Epidemiologic Research on Health Disparities, and Epidemiologic Approaches to Global Health.
×
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