Department of Biostatistics, School of Global Public Health, New York University, New York, New York 10003, United States.
Department of Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, United States.
Epidemiol Rev. 2023 Dec 20;45(1):32-43. doi: 10.1093/epirev/mxad004.
There is limited literature on the measures and metrics used to examine racism in the health inequities literature. Health inequities research is continuously evolving, with the number of publications increasing over time. However, there is limited knowledge on the best measures and methods to examine the impact of different levels of racism (institutionalized, personally mediated, and internalized) on health inequities. Advanced statistical methods have the potential to be used in new ways to examine the relationship between racism and health inequities. In this review, we conduct a descriptive examination of the measurement of racism in the health inequities epidemiologic literature. We examine the study design, methods used for analysis, types of measures used (e.g., composite, absolute, relative), number of measures used, phase of research (detect, understand, solutions), viewpoint (oppressor, oppressed), and components of structural racism measures (historical context, geographical context, multifaceted nature). We discuss methods (e.g., Peters-Belson, latent class analysis, difference in differences) that have demonstrated potential for future work. The articles reviewed were limited to the detect (25%) and understand (75%) phases, with no studies in the solutions phase. Although the majority (56%) of studies had cross-sectional designs, many authors pointed to the need for longitudinal and multilevel data for further exploration. We examined study design features as mutually exclusive elements. However, racism is a multifaceted system and the measurement of racism in many studies does not fit into a single category. As the literature grows, the significance of methodological and measurement triangulation to assess racism should be investigated.
关于用于检查健康不平等文献中种族主义的措施和指标的文献有限。健康不平等研究在不断发展,出版物数量随着时间的推移而增加。然而,对于检查不同程度的种族主义(制度化、个人介导和内化)对健康不平等的影响的最佳措施和方法知之甚少。先进的统计方法有可能以新的方式用于检查种族主义与健康不平等之间的关系。在这篇综述中,我们对健康不平等流行病学文献中种族主义的测量进行了描述性检查。我们检查了研究设计、分析中使用的方法、使用的测量类型(例如,综合、绝对、相对)、使用的测量数量、研究阶段(检测、理解、解决方案)、观点(压迫者、被压迫者)和结构种族主义测量的组成部分(历史背景、地理背景、多方面性质)。我们讨论了具有潜在未来工作潜力的方法(例如,Peters-Belson、潜在类别分析、差异差异)。所审查的文章仅限于检测(25%)和理解(75%)阶段,没有解决方案阶段的研究。尽管大多数(56%)研究具有横断面设计,但许多作者指出需要进一步探索纵向和多层次数据。我们将研究设计特征视为互斥元素进行了检查。然而,种族主义是一个多方面的系统,许多研究中的种族主义测量并不适合单一类别。随着文献的增长,应该研究使用方法和测量三角法来评估种族主义的重要性。