Department of Family Medicine and Public Health & Scripps Institution of Oceanography University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA, 92093, USA.
Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Environ Health. 2021 Jan 12;20(1):7. doi: 10.1186/s12940-020-00689-5.
Numerous epidemiologic studies have documented environmental health disparities according to race/ethnicity (R/E) to inform targeted interventions aimed at reducing these disparities. Yet, the use of R/E under the potential outcomes framework implies numerous underlying assumptions for epidemiologic studies that are often not carefully considered in environmental health research. In this commentary, we describe the current state of thinking about the interpretation of R/E variables in etiologic studies. We then discuss how such variables are commonly used in environmental epidemiology. We observed three main uses for R/E: i) as a confounder, ii) as an effect measure modifier and iii) as the main exposure of interest either through descriptive analysis or under a causal framework. We identified some common methodological concerns in each case and provided some practical solutions. The use of R/E in observational studies requires particular cautions in terms of formal interpretation and this commentary aims at providing a practical resource for future studies assessing racial/ethnic health disparities in environmental research.
许多流行病学研究根据种族/民族(R/E)记录了环境健康差异,以为旨在减少这些差异的针对性干预措施提供信息。然而,在潜在结果框架下使用 R/E 意味着流行病学研究存在许多潜在假设,而这些假设在环境健康研究中往往没有得到仔细考虑。在这篇评论中,我们描述了当前关于病因研究中 R/E 变量解释的思维状态。然后,我们讨论了此类变量在环境流行病学中的常用用法。我们观察到 R/E 的三种主要用途:i)作为混杂因素,ii)作为效应度量修饰符,以及 iii)作为主要关注的暴露因素,无论是通过描述性分析还是在因果框架下。我们在每种情况下都确定了一些常见的方法学问题,并提供了一些实用的解决方案。在观察性研究中使用 R/E 需要在正式解释方面特别谨慎,本评论旨在为未来评估环境研究中种族/民族健康差异的研究提供实用资源。