种族健康公平工具:2019-2021 年结构性种族主义测量范围审查。

IF 5.2 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Anna K Hing, Tongtan Chantarat, Shekinah Fashaw-Walters, Shanda L Hunt, Rachel R Hardeman
{"title":"种族健康公平工具:2019-2021 年结构性种族主义测量范围审查。","authors":"Anna K Hing, Tongtan Chantarat, Shekinah Fashaw-Walters, Shanda L Hunt, Rachel R Hardeman","doi":"10.1093/epirev/mxae002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Progress toward racial health equity cannot be made if we cannot measure its fundamental driver: structural racism. As in other epidemiologic studies, the first step is to measure the exposure. But how to measure structural racism is an ongoing debate. To characterize the approaches epidemiologists and other health researchers use to quantitatively measure structural racism, highlight methodological innovations, and identify gaps in the literature, we conducted a scoping review of the peer-reviewed and gray literature published during 2019-2021 to accompany the 2018 published work of Groos et al., in which they surveyed the scope of structural racism measurement up to 2017. We identified several themes from the recent literature: the current predominant focus on measuring anti-Black racism; using residential segregation as well as other segregation-driven measures as proxies of structural racism; measuring structural racism as spatial exposures; increasing calls by epidemiologists and other health researchers to measure structural racism as a multidimensional, multilevel determinant of health and related innovations; the development of policy databases; the utility of simulated counterfactual approaches in the understanding of how structural racism drives racial health inequities; and the lack of measures of antiracism and limited work on later life effects. Our findings sketch out several steps to improve the science related to structural racism measurements, which is key to advancing antiracism policies.</p>","PeriodicalId":50510,"journal":{"name":"Epidemiologic Reviews","volume":" ","pages":"1-26"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11405678/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Instruments for racial health equity: a scoping review of structural racism measurement, 2019-2021.\",\"authors\":\"Anna K Hing, Tongtan Chantarat, Shekinah Fashaw-Walters, Shanda L Hunt, Rachel R Hardeman\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/epirev/mxae002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Progress toward racial health equity cannot be made if we cannot measure its fundamental driver: structural racism. As in other epidemiologic studies, the first step is to measure the exposure. But how to measure structural racism is an ongoing debate. To characterize the approaches epidemiologists and other health researchers use to quantitatively measure structural racism, highlight methodological innovations, and identify gaps in the literature, we conducted a scoping review of the peer-reviewed and gray literature published during 2019-2021 to accompany the 2018 published work of Groos et al., in which they surveyed the scope of structural racism measurement up to 2017. We identified several themes from the recent literature: the current predominant focus on measuring anti-Black racism; using residential segregation as well as other segregation-driven measures as proxies of structural racism; measuring structural racism as spatial exposures; increasing calls by epidemiologists and other health researchers to measure structural racism as a multidimensional, multilevel determinant of health and related innovations; the development of policy databases; the utility of simulated counterfactual approaches in the understanding of how structural racism drives racial health inequities; and the lack of measures of antiracism and limited work on later life effects. Our findings sketch out several steps to improve the science related to structural racism measurements, which is key to advancing antiracism policies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50510,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Epidemiologic Reviews\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-26\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11405678/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Epidemiologic Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/epirev/mxae002\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epidemiologic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/epirev/mxae002","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

摘要

如果我们无法衡量种族健康公平的根本驱动因素--结构性种族主义,就无法在种族健康公平方面取得进展。与其他流行病学研究一样,第一步是测量暴露程度。但如何衡量结构性种族主义是一个持续的争论。为了描述流行病学家和其他健康研究人员用于定量测量结构性种族主义的方法,突出方法创新,并找出文献中的空白,我们对2019-2021年间发表的同行评审文献和灰色文献进行了一次范围审查,以配合Groos等人的工作(J Health Dispar Res Pract.2018;11(2):第 13 条)的工作,该研究调查了截至 2017 年结构性种族主义测量的范围。我们从近期文献中发现了几个主题:当前的主要重点是测量反黑人种族主义,使用住宅隔离以及其他由隔离驱动的测量方法作为结构性种族主义的代用指标,测量结构性种族主义的空间暴露,流行病学家和其他健康研究人员越来越多地呼吁将结构性种族主义作为多维度、多层次的健康及相关创新的决定因素来测量,开发政策数据库,模拟反事实方法在理解结构性种族主义如何驱动种族健康不平等方面的效用,以及缺乏反种族主义的测量方法和对晚年生活影响的有限研究。我们的研究结果勾勒出了未来改进结构性种族主义测量科学的几个步骤,这是推进反种族主义政策的关键。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Instruments for racial health equity: a scoping review of structural racism measurement, 2019-2021.

Progress toward racial health equity cannot be made if we cannot measure its fundamental driver: structural racism. As in other epidemiologic studies, the first step is to measure the exposure. But how to measure structural racism is an ongoing debate. To characterize the approaches epidemiologists and other health researchers use to quantitatively measure structural racism, highlight methodological innovations, and identify gaps in the literature, we conducted a scoping review of the peer-reviewed and gray literature published during 2019-2021 to accompany the 2018 published work of Groos et al., in which they surveyed the scope of structural racism measurement up to 2017. We identified several themes from the recent literature: the current predominant focus on measuring anti-Black racism; using residential segregation as well as other segregation-driven measures as proxies of structural racism; measuring structural racism as spatial exposures; increasing calls by epidemiologists and other health researchers to measure structural racism as a multidimensional, multilevel determinant of health and related innovations; the development of policy databases; the utility of simulated counterfactual approaches in the understanding of how structural racism drives racial health inequities; and the lack of measures of antiracism and limited work on later life effects. Our findings sketch out several steps to improve the science related to structural racism measurements, which is key to advancing antiracism policies.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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