“We adjusted for race”: now what? A systematic review of utilization and reporting of race in American Journal of Epidemiology and Epidemiology, 2020–2021

Author:

Swilley-Martinez Monica E12,Coles Serita A3,Miller Vanessa E2,Alam Ishrat Z12,Fitch Kate Vinita12,Cruz Theresa H4,Hohl Bernadette5,Murray Regan6,Ranapurwala Shabbar I12ORCID

Affiliation:

1. University of North Carolina Department of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, , Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7435, United States

2. University of North Carolina Injury Prevention Research Center, , Chapel Hill, NC 27599, United States

3. University of North Carolina Department of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, , Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7440, United States

4. University of New Mexico Prevention Research Center, Department of Pediatrics, Health Sciences Center, , Albuquerque, NM 87131, United States

5. University of Pennsylvania Penn Injury Science Center, Perelman School of Medicine, , Philadelphia, PA 19104-6021, United States

6. University of Arkansas Center for Public Health and Technology, Department of Health, Human Performance and Recreation, , Fayetteville, AR 72701, United States

Abstract

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.

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

General Medicine,Epidemiology

Reference226 articles.

1. Commentary: considerations for use of racial/ethnic classification in etiologic research;Kaufman;Am J Epidemiol.,2001

2. Invited commentary: “Race, racism, and the practice of epidemiology”;Jones;Am J Epidemiol,2001

3. Skin color and race;Jablonski;Am J Phys Anthropol.,2021

4. Caste, social stigma, and identity processes;Jaspal;Psychol Dev Soc.,2011

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3