医学地名命名者的性别和种族化状况:横断面研究。

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Nishaant Bhambra, Sarah Waicus, Navindra Persaud
{"title":"医学地名命名者的性别和种族化状况:横断面研究。","authors":"Nishaant Bhambra, Sarah Waicus, Navindra Persaud","doi":"10.1007/s40615-024-01961-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Many medical eponyms were established when women and racialized individuals were excluded from medicine. The objective of this study was to determine the gender and racialization status of individuals whose names are incorporated in medical eponyms.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study is a cross-sectional analysis of gender and racialization of medical eponym namesakes. The main outcome measures were the study of gender and racialization of medical eponym namesakes found in Whonamedit, Mosby's Medical Dictionary, and the International Classification of Diseases (version 10). The gender and whether the individual was a racialized person were determined using pictures and other available information.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 3484 unique eponyms. White men represented the majority of medical eponym namesakes (2190 of 2327, 94.1%) followed by white women (85 of 2327, 3.7%), racialized men (49 of 2327, 2.1%), and racialized women (3 of 2327, 0.1%). In the ICD-10 sub-analysis, white men represented the majority of medical eponym namesakes (476 of 514, 92.6%) followed by white women (22 of 514, 4.3%), racialized men (14 of 514, 2.7%), and racialized women (2 of 514, 0.4%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Most medical eponyms represent men and white individuals, highlighting the underrepresentation of women and racialized individuals. This indicates a need to re-examine the ongoing use of medical eponyms which may entrench sexism and racism in medicine and contribute to an environment that makes some feel unwelcome or undervalued.</p>","PeriodicalId":16921,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities","volume":" ","pages":"1298-1303"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Gender and Racialization Status of Medical Eponym Namesakes: Cross-sectional Study.\",\"authors\":\"Nishaant Bhambra, Sarah Waicus, Navindra Persaud\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40615-024-01961-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Many medical eponyms were established when women and racialized individuals were excluded from medicine. The objective of this study was to determine the gender and racialization status of individuals whose names are incorporated in medical eponyms.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study is a cross-sectional analysis of gender and racialization of medical eponym namesakes. The main outcome measures were the study of gender and racialization of medical eponym namesakes found in Whonamedit, Mosby's Medical Dictionary, and the International Classification of Diseases (version 10). The gender and whether the individual was a racialized person were determined using pictures and other available information.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 3484 unique eponyms. White men represented the majority of medical eponym namesakes (2190 of 2327, 94.1%) followed by white women (85 of 2327, 3.7%), racialized men (49 of 2327, 2.1%), and racialized women (3 of 2327, 0.1%). In the ICD-10 sub-analysis, white men represented the majority of medical eponym namesakes (476 of 514, 92.6%) followed by white women (22 of 514, 4.3%), racialized men (14 of 514, 2.7%), and racialized women (2 of 514, 0.4%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Most medical eponyms represent men and white individuals, highlighting the underrepresentation of women and racialized individuals. This indicates a need to re-examine the ongoing use of medical eponyms which may entrench sexism and racism in medicine and contribute to an environment that makes some feel unwelcome or undervalued.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16921,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1298-1303\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40615-024-01961-x\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/3/4 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40615-024-01961-x","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:许多医学地名都是在女性和种族化个人被排除在医学之外时建立的。本研究旨在确定姓名被纳入医学地名的个人的性别和种族化状况:本研究对医学地名命名者的性别和种族化状况进行了横断面分析。主要结果指标是对 Whonamedit、《莫斯比医学词典》和《国际疾病分类》(第 10 版)中医学同名人的性别和种族化进行研究。通过图片和其他可用信息来确定个人的性别和是否种族化:结果:我们确定了 3484 个独特的外来语地名。白种男性占医疗同名人的大多数(2327 人中有 2190 人,占 94.1%),其次是白种女性(2327 人中有 85 人,占 3.7%)、种族化男性(2327 人中有 49 人,占 2.1%)和种族化女性(2327 人中有 3 人,占 0.1%)。在 ICD-10 分项分析中,白人男性占医学地名命名者的大多数(514 人中有 476 人,占 92.6%),其次是白人女性(514 人中有 22 人,占 4.3%)、种族化男性(514 人中有 14 人,占 2.7%)和种族化女性(514 人中有 2 人,占 0.4%):结论:大多数医学外来地名代表男性和白人,女性和种族化个人的代表性不足。这表明有必要重新审视目前使用的医学外来语地名,它们可能会巩固医学中的性别歧视和种族主义,并助长一种使某些人感到不受欢迎或价值被低估的环境。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Gender and Racialization Status of Medical Eponym Namesakes: Cross-sectional Study.

Gender and Racialization Status of Medical Eponym Namesakes: Cross-sectional Study.

Background: Many medical eponyms were established when women and racialized individuals were excluded from medicine. The objective of this study was to determine the gender and racialization status of individuals whose names are incorporated in medical eponyms.

Methods: This study is a cross-sectional analysis of gender and racialization of medical eponym namesakes. The main outcome measures were the study of gender and racialization of medical eponym namesakes found in Whonamedit, Mosby's Medical Dictionary, and the International Classification of Diseases (version 10). The gender and whether the individual was a racialized person were determined using pictures and other available information.

Results: We identified 3484 unique eponyms. White men represented the majority of medical eponym namesakes (2190 of 2327, 94.1%) followed by white women (85 of 2327, 3.7%), racialized men (49 of 2327, 2.1%), and racialized women (3 of 2327, 0.1%). In the ICD-10 sub-analysis, white men represented the majority of medical eponym namesakes (476 of 514, 92.6%) followed by white women (22 of 514, 4.3%), racialized men (14 of 514, 2.7%), and racialized women (2 of 514, 0.4%).

Conclusion: Most medical eponyms represent men and white individuals, highlighting the underrepresentation of women and racialized individuals. This indicates a need to re-examine the ongoing use of medical eponyms which may entrench sexism and racism in medicine and contribute to an environment that makes some feel unwelcome or undervalued.

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
Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities
Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
5.10%
发文量
263
期刊介绍: Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities reports on the scholarly progress of work to understand, address, and ultimately eliminate health disparities based on race and ethnicity. Efforts to explore underlying causes of health disparities and to describe interventions that have been undertaken to address racial and ethnic health disparities are featured. Promising studies that are ongoing or studies that have longer term data are welcome, as are studies that serve as lessons for best practices in eliminating health disparities. Original research, systematic reviews, and commentaries presenting the state-of-the-art thinking on problems centered on health disparities will be considered for publication. We particularly encourage review articles that generate innovative and testable ideas, and constructive discussions and/or critiques of health disparities.Because the Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities receives a large number of submissions, about 30% of submissions to the Journal are sent out for full peer review.
×
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