系统回顾《流行病学评论》文章(1979-2021 年)中如何处理种族化健康不平等问题:重要的概念和实证内容分析以及最佳做法建议。

IF 5.2 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Dena Javadi, Audrey R Murchland, Tamara Rushovich, Emily Wright, Anna Shchetinina, Anna C Siefkas, Kieran P Todd, Julian Gitelman, Enjoli Hall, Jhordan O Wynne, Nishan Zewge-Abubaker, Nancy Krieger
{"title":"系统回顾《流行病学评论》文章(1979-2021 年)中如何处理种族化健康不平等问题:重要的概念和实证内容分析以及最佳做法建议。","authors":"Dena Javadi, Audrey R Murchland, Tamara Rushovich, Emily Wright, Anna Shchetinina, Anna C Siefkas, Kieran P Todd, Julian Gitelman, Enjoli Hall, Jhordan O Wynne, Nishan Zewge-Abubaker, Nancy Krieger","doi":"10.1093/epirev/mxad008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Critical analysis of the determinants of current and changing racialized health inequities, including the central role of racism, is an urgent priority for epidemiology, for both original research studies and epidemiologic review articles. Motivating our systematic overview review of Epidemiologic Reviews articles is the critical role of epidemiologic reviews in shaping discourse, research priorities, and policy relevant to the social patterning of population health. Our approach was first to document the number of articles published in Epidemiologic Reviews (1979-2021; n = 685) that either: (1) focused the review on racism and health, racial discrimination and health, or racialized health inequities (n = 27; 4%); (2) mentioned racialized groups but did not focus on racism or racialized health inequities (n = 399; 59%); or (3) included no mention of racialized groups or racialized health inequities (n = 250; 37%). We then conducted a critical content analysis of the 27 review articles that focused on racialized health inequities and assessed key characteristics, including (1) concepts, terms, and metrics used regarding racism and racialized groups (notably only 26% addressed the use or nonuse of measures explicitly linked to racism; 15% provided explicit definitions of racialized groups); (2) theories of disease distribution guiding (explicitly or implicitly) the review's approach; (3) interpretation of findings; and (4) recommendations offered. Guided by our results, we offer recommendations for best practices for epidemiologic review articles for addressing how epidemiologic research does or does not address ubiquitous racialized health inequities.</p>","PeriodicalId":50510,"journal":{"name":"Epidemiologic Reviews","volume":" ","pages":"1-14"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Systematic review of how racialized health inequities are addressed in Epidemiologic Reviews articles (1979-2021): a critical conceptual and empirical content analysis and recommendations for best practices.\",\"authors\":\"Dena Javadi, Audrey R Murchland, Tamara Rushovich, Emily Wright, Anna Shchetinina, Anna C Siefkas, Kieran P Todd, Julian Gitelman, Enjoli Hall, Jhordan O Wynne, Nishan Zewge-Abubaker, Nancy Krieger\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/epirev/mxad008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Critical analysis of the determinants of current and changing racialized health inequities, including the central role of racism, is an urgent priority for epidemiology, for both original research studies and epidemiologic review articles. Motivating our systematic overview review of Epidemiologic Reviews articles is the critical role of epidemiologic reviews in shaping discourse, research priorities, and policy relevant to the social patterning of population health. Our approach was first to document the number of articles published in Epidemiologic Reviews (1979-2021; n = 685) that either: (1) focused the review on racism and health, racial discrimination and health, or racialized health inequities (n = 27; 4%); (2) mentioned racialized groups but did not focus on racism or racialized health inequities (n = 399; 59%); or (3) included no mention of racialized groups or racialized health inequities (n = 250; 37%). We then conducted a critical content analysis of the 27 review articles that focused on racialized health inequities and assessed key characteristics, including (1) concepts, terms, and metrics used regarding racism and racialized groups (notably only 26% addressed the use or nonuse of measures explicitly linked to racism; 15% provided explicit definitions of racialized groups); (2) theories of disease distribution guiding (explicitly or implicitly) the review's approach; (3) interpretation of findings; and (4) recommendations offered. Guided by our results, we offer recommendations for best practices for epidemiologic review articles for addressing how epidemiologic research does or does not address ubiquitous racialized health inequities.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50510,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Epidemiologic Reviews\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-14\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Epidemiologic Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/epirev/mxad008\",\"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/mxad008","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: 1

摘要

对当前和不断变化的种族化健康不平等的决定因素(包括种族主义的核心作用)进行批判性分析,是流行病学的当务之急,对原创性研究和流行病学综述文章而言都是如此。促使我们对流行病学综述文章进行系统综述的原因是,流行病学综述在形成与人口健康的社会模式相关的论述、研究重点和政策方面起着至关重要的作用。我们首先记录了发表在《流行病学综述》(1979-2021;n = 685)上的文章数量,这些文章有的是:(1)重点综述种族主义与健康、种族歧视与健康或种族化的健康不平等(n = 27;4%);(2)提到种族化群体,但没有重点综述种族主义或种族化的健康不平等(n = 399;59%);或(3)没有提到种族化群体或种族化的健康不平等(n = 250;37%)。然后,我们对这 27 篇关注种族化健康不平等的综述文章进行了批判性内容分析,并评估了其关键特征,包括:(1)有关种族主义和种族化群体的概念、术语和衡量标准(值得注意的是,只有 26% 的文章涉及使用或不使用与种族主义明确相关的衡量标准;15% 的文章提供了种族化群体的明确定义);(2)(明确或隐含地)指导综述方法的疾病分布理论;(3)对研究结果的解释;以及(4)提出的建议。在研究结果的指导下,我们提出了流行病学综述文章的最佳实践建议,以探讨流行病学研究如何解决或不解决普遍存在的种族化健康不平等问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Systematic review of how racialized health inequities are addressed in Epidemiologic Reviews articles (1979-2021): a critical conceptual and empirical content analysis and recommendations for best practices.

Critical analysis of the determinants of current and changing racialized health inequities, including the central role of racism, is an urgent priority for epidemiology, for both original research studies and epidemiologic review articles. Motivating our systematic overview review of Epidemiologic Reviews articles is the critical role of epidemiologic reviews in shaping discourse, research priorities, and policy relevant to the social patterning of population health. Our approach was first to document the number of articles published in Epidemiologic Reviews (1979-2021; n = 685) that either: (1) focused the review on racism and health, racial discrimination and health, or racialized health inequities (n = 27; 4%); (2) mentioned racialized groups but did not focus on racism or racialized health inequities (n = 399; 59%); or (3) included no mention of racialized groups or racialized health inequities (n = 250; 37%). We then conducted a critical content analysis of the 27 review articles that focused on racialized health inequities and assessed key characteristics, including (1) concepts, terms, and metrics used regarding racism and racialized groups (notably only 26% addressed the use or nonuse of measures explicitly linked to racism; 15% provided explicit definitions of racialized groups); (2) theories of disease distribution guiding (explicitly or implicitly) the review's approach; (3) interpretation of findings; and (4) recommendations offered. Guided by our results, we offer recommendations for best practices for epidemiologic review articles for addressing how epidemiologic research does or does not address ubiquitous racialized health inequities.

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