Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas; Texas A&M Institute for Neuroscience, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas.
J Pain. 2022 Jun;23(6):893-912. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2022.01.010. Epub 2022 Feb 26.
This second paper in a 3-part series on antiracism in pain research across the translational spectrum focuses on study design factors. Although objectivity is a cornerstone value of science, subjectivity is embedded in every step of the research process as investigators make choices about who they collaborate with, which research questions they ask, how they recruit participants, which research tools they use, and how they analyze and interpret data. We present theory and evidence from disciplines such as sociology, medical anthropology, statistics, and public health to discuss 4 common study design factors, including 1) the dominant biomedical narrative of pain that restricts funding and exploration of social indicators of pain, 2) low diversity and inclusion in pain research enrollment that restricts generalizability to racialized groups, 3) the use of "race" or "ethnicity" as a statistical variable and proxy for lived experiences (eg, racism, resilience), and 4) limited modeling in preclinical research for the impact of social factors on pain physiology. The information presented in this article is intended to start conversations across stakeholders in the pain field to explore how we can come together to adopt antiracism practices in our work at large to achieve equity for racialized groups. PERSPECTIVE: This is the second paper in a 3-part series on antiracism in pain research. This part identifies common study design factors that risk hindering progress toward pain care equity. We suggest reframes using an antiracism framework for these factors to encourage all pain investigators to collectively make strides toward equity.
这是关于跨转化谱中的疼痛研究中的反种族主义的 3 部分系列中的第二篇论文,重点关注研究设计因素。尽管客观性是科学的基石价值观,但主观性嵌入研究过程的每一步中,因为研究人员在选择与谁合作、提出哪些研究问题、如何招募参与者、使用哪些研究工具以及如何分析和解释数据方面做出选择。我们从社会学、医学人类学、统计学和公共卫生等学科中提出理论和证据,讨论了 4 个常见的研究设计因素,包括 1)疼痛的主导生物医学叙事,限制了对社会疼痛指标的资金和探索,2)疼痛研究参与中的多样性和包容性低,限制了对种族化群体的普遍性,3)使用“种族”或“族裔”作为统计变量和代表生活经历(例如,种族主义、韧性),以及 4)临床前研究中对社会因素对疼痛生理学影响的建模有限。本文介绍的信息旨在在疼痛领域的利益相关者之间开展对话,探讨我们如何共同在工作中采用反种族主义实践,为种族化群体实现公平。观点:这是关于疼痛研究中的反种族主义的 3 部分系列中的第二篇论文。本文确定了常见的研究设计因素,这些因素可能会阻碍实现疼痛护理公平的进展。我们建议使用反种族主义框架重新构建这些因素,以鼓励所有疼痛研究人员共同朝着公平方向迈进。