A Prospective Examination of Racial Microaggressions in the Medical Encounter

Discrimination and Dignity Experiences in Prior Oral Care Visits Predict Racialized Oral Health Inequities Among Nationally Representative US Adults

Racism, an oppressive and fallacious sociopolitical hierarchy, is a fundamental cause of oral health inequities worldwide. Everyday discrimination is associated with worse self-rated oral health, toothache and adult tooth loss, and lower oral care utilization. Few studies examine discrimination or microaggressions within oral care settings or their effects on oral health outcomes. We adapted the seven-item Everyday Discrimination Scale to the oral care setting (EDSOC); developed a four-item Dignity in Oral Care Scale (DOCS); fielded them to a probability-based nationally representative sample of US households as part of the 2022 State of Oral Health Equity in America survey (SOHEA, n = 5682); and examined associations between EDSOC and DOCS scores and three outcomes: self-rated oral health, duration since last oral care visit, and planning for future preventive/routine oral care. Nearly, all EDSCOC and DOCS measures were significantly associated with oral health outcomes. Discrimination experience in dental settings had an additive effect on reporting fair/poor oral health and a suppressive effect on planning a future dental visit. Indignity experience doubled-to-quadrupled the likelihood of reporting fair/poor oral health, not having visited a dentist in 2 years, and not planning a future oral care visit. Racio-ethnically minoritized patients may experience the unjust double bind of resolving urgent dental or completing preventive services needs amidst being treated in a discriminatory manner or without dignity. Oral health stakeholders should invest more effort to understand relationships between racism and oral health outcomes and introduce evidence-based interventions to ultimately abolish this societal harm.

(In)visibility of LGBTQIA+ people and relationships in healthcare: A scoping review

OBJECTIVE

To identify and map research into the visibility of LGBTQIA+ people and their relationships in healthcare, with the view to inform future research and practice.

METHOD

Five databases were systematically searched for published and grey literature. Primary research reporting on visibility of LGBTQIA+ people in healthcare was included. Two reviewers independently screened the studies until an acceptable level of agreement was reached. A narrative synthesis was conducted and findings mapped to a taxonomy of microaggressions involving three sub-categories: microinsults, microassaults and microinvalidations.

RESULTS

The microaggressions identified included Microinsults: 'Perception of health professionals' knowledge and comfort' and 'Disclosure'; Microassaults: 'Discrimination and stigma'; Microvalidations: 'Accessing and navigating through services', 'Encounters of assumptions and stereotypes', 'Validating identities and including relationships', and 'Reading the environment'.

CONCLUSION

Despite growing societal acceptance, microaggressions still exist within healthcare. Groups within LGBTQIA+ communities have varying levels of visibility in research and healthcare based on the studies included.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The limited visibility of LGBT and lack of visibility of QIA+ people and their relationships in healthcare highlight the need to include the views of all LGBTQIA+ communities in research, and to ensure health professionals and clinical services are equipped to address this (in)visibility gap.

Attitudes and Actions Related to Racism: the Anti-RaCism (ARC) Survey Study

BACKGROUND

Racism negatively impacts health and well-being. Members of the medical community must intervene to address racism.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether attitudes about the impact of racism on health or society are associated with intervening around racism.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey of a large department of medicine in an urban academic setting.

PARTICIPANTS

Interns, residents, fellows, and faculty.

MAIN MEASURES

The primary outcome was the likelihood of intervening around an observed racist encounter or a racist policy. Predictor variables included age, gender identity, race/ethnicity, and attitudes about racism.

KEY RESULTS

Although the majority of the 948 respondents endorsed the impact of racism on health and other societal effects, levels of endorsement were lower among older individuals, or those reporting male gender identity or selecting other race. Higher endorsement of the impact of racism on health was associated with increased odds of speaking up about a racist encounter or racist policy, with odds ratios from 1.18 to 1.30 across scenarios. Likelihood of speaking up about racism did not differ by racial or ethnic group, but older individuals were generally more likely to speak up and individuals between 20 and 29 years of age were more likely to speak with someone other than leadership or the source of a racist encounter.

CONCLUSIONS

Awareness of the effects of racism on health is associated with increased likelihood of intervening when a racist encounter is observed or a racist policy is noted. Including information on the impact of racism on health and creating safe spaces to discuss racism may increase the likelihood of bystander intervention in anti-racism strategies.

Microaggression clues from social media: revealing and counteracting the suppression of women's health care

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to demonstrate how analyzing social media posts can uncover microaggressions and generate new cultural insights. We explore why Korean women hesitate to seek recommended gynecological care and how microaggressions visible in social media reveal insights for counteracting such harmful messaging.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We scraped the posts and responses on social media related to unmarried women's uncomfortableness or unpleasantness in receiving gynecological care. We conducted content analyses of the posts and responses with the microaggression framework to identify both the types of microaggressions occurring within and outside the clinic as well as the responsible perpetrators. With an open-coding and subsequent deductive coding approach, we further investigated the socio-cultural context for receiving gynecological care as an unmarried woman in South Korea.

RESULTS

Our analysis uncovered that mothers, male partners, and superficially supportive social media responders contribute to pre- and post-visit microaggressions toward unmarried women seeking gynecological care whereas healthcare providers contribute to only mid-visit microaggressions. We also exposed how social media was not only revealing but also reinforcing the suppression of women's health care.

DISCUSSION

Mid-visit microaggressions are currently addressed by cultural competence education, but pre- and post-visit microaggressions are overlooked. We uncover the gaps in current practices of informatics and public health methods and suggest ways to counteract online and offline microaggressions.

CONCLUSIONS

Social media provides valuable information about the cultural context of health care and should be used as a source of insights for targeted interventions to improve health care, in this case for unmarried Korean women.

This is our lane: talking with patients about racism

Racism has significantly impacted communities of color for centuries. The year 2020 is a reminder that racism is an ongoing public health crisis. Healthcare institutions have an important role in dismantling racism because of their ability to implement innovative solutions that advance diversity, address social determinants of health, and promote health equity. Healthcare professionals have the unique opportunity to support patients by discussing patients' experiences of bias and racism. Asking about discrimination, however, can be difficult because of the sensitive nature of the topic and lack of appropriate education. This review highlights the importance of addressing patients' experiences of racism, utilizing the frameworks of trauma-informed care, structural competency, provider bias, and intersectionality. Furthermore, this review provides ways to engage in meaningful dialogue around discrimination and includes important patient-centric resources.

Physician Use of Stigmatizing Language in Patient Medical Records

IMPORTANCE

Negative attitudes toward patients can adversely impact health care quality and contribute to health disparities. Stigmatizing language written in a patient's medical record can perpetuate negative attitudes and influence decision-making of clinicians subsequently caring for that patient.

OBJECTIVE

To identify and describe physician language in patient health records that may reflect, or engender in others, negative and positive attitudes toward the patient.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This qualitative study analyzed randomly selected encounter notes from electronic medical records in the ambulatory internal medicine setting at an urban academic medical center. The 600 encounter notes were written by 138 physicians in 2017. Data were analyzed in 2019.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Common linguistic characteristics reflecting an overall positive or negative attitude toward the patient.

RESULTS

A total of 138 clinicians wrote encounter notes about 507 patients. Of these patients, 350 (69%) were identified as female, 406 (80%) were identified as Black/African American, and 76 (15%) were identified as White. Of 600 encounter notes included in this study, there were 5 major themes representing negative language and 6 themes representing positive language. The majority of negative language was not explicit and generally fell into one or more of the following categories: (1) questioning patient credibility, (2) expressing disapproval of patient reasoning or self-care, (3) stereotyping by race or social class, (4) portraying the patient as difficult, and (5) emphasizing physician authority over the patient. Positive language was more often more explicit and included (1) direct compliments, (2) expressions of approval, (3) self-disclosure of the physician's own positive feelings toward the patient, (4) minimization of blame, (5) personalization, and (6) highlighting patient authority for their own decisions.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This qualitative study found that physicians express negative and positive attitudes toward patients when documenting in the medical record. Although often not explicit, this language could potentially transmit bias and affect the quality of care that patients subsequently receive. These findings suggest that increased physician awareness when writing and reading medical records is needed to prevent the perpetuation of negative bias in medical care.

Testimonial Injustice: Linguistic Bias in the Medical Records of Black Patients and Women

BACKGROUND

Black Americans and women report feeling doubted or dismissed by health professionals.

OBJECTIVE

To identify linguistic mechanisms by which physicians communicate disbelief of patients in medical records and then to explore racial and gender differences in the use of such language.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

All notes for patients seen in an academic ambulatory internal medicine practice in 2017.

MAIN MEASURES

A content analysis of 600 clinic notes revealed three linguistic features suggesting disbelief: (1) quotes (e.g., had a "reaction" to the medication); (2) specific "judgment words" that suggest doubt (e.g., "claims" or "insists"); and (3) evidentials, a sentence construction in which patients' symptoms or experience is reported as hearsay. We used natural language processing to evaluate the prevalence of these features in the remaining notes and tested differences by race and gender, using mixed-effects regression to account for clustering of notes within patients and providers.

KEY RESULTS

Our sample included 9251 notes written by 165 physicians about 3374 unique patients. Most patients were identified as Black (74%) and female (58%). Notes written about Black patients had higher odds of containing at least one quote (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.20-1.83) and at least one judgment word (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.02-1.53), and used more evidentials (β 0.32, 95% CI 0.17-0.47), compared to notes of White patients. Notes about female vs. male patients did not differ in terms of judgment words or evidentials but had a higher odds of containing at least one quote (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.05-1.44).

CONCLUSIONS

Black patients may be subject to systematic bias in physicians' perceptions of their credibility, a form of testimonial injustice. This is another potential mechanism for racial disparities in healthcare quality that should be further investigated and addressed.