Misracialization of Indigenous people in population health and mortality studies: a scoping review to establish promising practices.

IF 5.2 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Danielle R Gartner, Ceco Maples, Madeline Nash, Heather Howard-Bobiwash
{"title":"Misracialization of Indigenous people in population health and mortality studies: a scoping review to establish promising practices.","authors":"Danielle R Gartner, Ceco Maples, Madeline Nash, Heather Howard-Bobiwash","doi":"10.1093/epirev/mxad001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Indigenous people are often misracialized as other racial or ethnic identities in population health research. This misclassification leads to underestimation of Indigenous-specific mortality and health metrics, and subsequently, inadequate resource allocation. In recognition of this problem, investigators around the world have devised analytic methods to address racial misclassification of Indigenous people. We carried out a scoping review based on searches in PubMed, Web of Science, and the Native Health Database for empirical studies published after 2000 that include Indigenous-specific estimates of health or mortality and that take analytic steps to rectify racial misclassification of Indigenous people. We then considered the weaknesses and strengths of implemented analytic approaches, with a focus on methods used in the US context. To do this, we extracted information from 97 articles and compared the analytic approaches used. The most common approach to address Indigenous misclassification is to use data linkage; other methods include geographic restriction to areas where misclassification is less common, exclusion of some subgroups, imputation, aggregation, and electronic health record abstraction. We identified 4 primary limitations of these approaches: (1) combining data sources that use inconsistent processes and/or sources of race and ethnicity information; (2) conflating race, ethnicity, and nationality; (3) applying insufficient algorithms to bridge, impute, or link race and ethnicity information; and (4) assuming the hyperlocality of Indigenous people. Although there is no perfect solution to the issue of Indigenous misclassification in population-based studies, a review of this literature provided information on promising practices to consider.</p>","PeriodicalId":50510,"journal":{"name":"Epidemiologic Reviews","volume":" ","pages":"63-81"},"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/mxad001","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

Indigenous people are often misracialized as other racial or ethnic identities in population health research. This misclassification leads to underestimation of Indigenous-specific mortality and health metrics, and subsequently, inadequate resource allocation. In recognition of this problem, investigators around the world have devised analytic methods to address racial misclassification of Indigenous people. We carried out a scoping review based on searches in PubMed, Web of Science, and the Native Health Database for empirical studies published after 2000 that include Indigenous-specific estimates of health or mortality and that take analytic steps to rectify racial misclassification of Indigenous people. We then considered the weaknesses and strengths of implemented analytic approaches, with a focus on methods used in the US context. To do this, we extracted information from 97 articles and compared the analytic approaches used. The most common approach to address Indigenous misclassification is to use data linkage; other methods include geographic restriction to areas where misclassification is less common, exclusion of some subgroups, imputation, aggregation, and electronic health record abstraction. We identified 4 primary limitations of these approaches: (1) combining data sources that use inconsistent processes and/or sources of race and ethnicity information; (2) conflating race, ethnicity, and nationality; (3) applying insufficient algorithms to bridge, impute, or link race and ethnicity information; and (4) assuming the hyperlocality of Indigenous people. Although there is no perfect solution to the issue of Indigenous misclassification in population-based studies, a review of this literature provided information on promising practices to consider.

人口健康和死亡率研究中的土著人种族化误区:确定可行做法的范围审查。
在人口健康研究中,土著人常常被误认为是其他种族或民族。这种错误分类导致低估土著人的死亡率和健康指标,进而导致资源分配不足。认识到这一问题后,世界各地的研究人员已设计出分析方法来解决土著人种族分类错误的问题。我们根据在 PubMed、Web of Science 和土著人健康数据库中的搜索结果,对 2000 年后发表的实证研究进行了范围界定,这些研究包括针对土著人的健康或死亡率估算,并采取了分析步骤来纠正土著人的种族分类错误。然后,我们研究了已实施的分析方法的优缺点,重点是在美国背景下使用的方法。为此,我们从 97 篇文章中提取了信息,并对所使用的分析方法进行了比较。解决土著人分类错误最常见的方法是使用数据链接;其他方法包括将地域限制在分类错误较少的地区、排除某些亚组、估算、汇总和电子健康记录抽取。我们发现了这些方法的四个主要局限性:(1) 将使用不一致的程序和/或种族和民族信息来源的数据源结合起来;(2) 将种族、民族和国籍混为一谈;(3) 应用不充分的算法来连接、估算或联系种族和民族信息;(4) 假定土著人的超位置性。虽然在基于人口的研究中没有完美解决土著人分类错误问题的方法,但对这些文献的回顾提供了一些值得考虑的可行方法。
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