Racial and Ethnic Inequities in Health: Examining the Contributions of the American Journal of Epidemiology to Advancing the Science

Race as a Risk Marker, Not a Risk Factor: Revising Race-Based Algorithms to Protect Racially Oppressed Patients

Emerging consensus in the medical and public health spheres encourages removing race and ethnicity from algorithms used in clinical decision-making. Although clinical algorithms remain appealing given their promise to lighten the cognitive load of medical practice and save time for providers, they risk exacerbating existing health disparities. Race is a strong risk marker of health outcomes, yet it is not a risk factor. The use of race as a factor in medical algorithms suggests that the effect of race is intrinsic to the patient or that its effects can be distinct or separated from other social and environmental variables. By contrast, incisive public health analysis coupled with a race-conscious perspective recognizes that race serves as a marker of countless other dynamic variables and that structural racism, rather than race, compromises the health of racially oppressed individuals. This perspective offers a historical and theoretical context for the current debates regarding the use of race in clinical algorithms, clinical and epidemiologic perspectives on "risk," and future directions for research and policy interventions that combat color-evasive racism and follow the principles of race-conscious medicine.

Lessons learned from implementing a diversity, equity, and inclusion curriculum for health research professionals at a large academic research institution

Objective

Despite advances in incorporating diversity and structural competency into medical education curriculum, there is limited curriculum for public health research professionals. We developed and implemented a four-part diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) training series tailored for academic health research professionals to increase foundational knowledge of core diversity concepts and improve skills.

Methods

We analyzed close- and open-ended attendee survey data to evaluate within- and between-session changes in DEI knowledge and perceived skills.

Results

Over the four sessions, workshop attendance ranged from 45 to 82 attendees from our 250-person academic department and represented a mix of staff (64%), faculty (25%), and trainees (11%). Most identified as female (74%), 28% as a member of an underrepresented racial and ethnic minority (URM) group, and 17% as LGBTQI. During all four sessions, attendees increased their level of DEI knowledge, and within sessions two through four, attendees' perception of DEI skills increased. We observed increased situational DEI awareness as higher proportions of attendees noted disparities in mentoring and opportunities for advancement/promotion. An increase in a perceived lack of DEI in the workplace as a problem was observed; but only statistically significant among URM attendees.

Discussion

Developing applied curricula yielded measurable improvements in knowledge and skills for a diverse health research department of faculty, staff, and students. Nesting this training within a more extensive program of departmental activities to improve climate and address systematic exclusion likely contributed to the series' success. Additional research is underway to understand the series' longer-term impact on applying skills for behavior change.

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

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.

Research on racial/ethnic inequities in oral health over the past 80 years: The role of racism

AIM

This study aims to (1) describe trends in explanations provided for racial/ethnic inequities in dental caries and periodontitis, and (2) explore the patterns of relatedness among explanations for these inequities.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Highly cited publications based on studies indexed in the Scopus database were retrieved and assessed for eligibility. Explanations for racial/ethnic inequities were classified into eight different, but interrelated domains. We assessed trends and examined the relations among explanations using multiple correspondence analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 200 articles among the most cited publications were selected. The proportion of studies invoking racism as an explanation for racial inequities in oral health increased from 0% to 14.3%, from 1937 to 2020. The proportions of individual socio-economic factors increased from 52.0% to 82.9%, and dental care from 28.0% to 62.9%. The remaining explanations were stable: psychological/behavioural processes (62.5%), biological factors (49.5%), contextual/area-level effects (24.0%) and immigrant paradox (4.0%). Multiple correspondence analysis revealed a smaller axial distance between racism and the following categories: studies from Brazil, recent publications and Blacks/Hispanics/mixed-race groups. Publications about immigrants were axially closer to the high-income countries category.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings call on dental researchers to consider racism as a cause for existing racial/ethnic inequities in oral health.