Suppr超能文献

在英国,健康研究中是如何报告、描述和分析族群的?一项文献回顾和与年轻难民的焦点小组讨论。

How is ethnicity reported, described, and analysed in health research in the UK? A bibliographical review and focus group discussions with young refugees.

机构信息

UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, 30 Guilford St, London, WC1N 1EH, UK.

Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.

出版信息

BMC Public Health. 2023 Oct 17;23(1):2025. doi: 10.1186/s12889-023-16947-3.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The ethnicity data gap pertains to 3 major challenges to address ethnic health inequality: 1) Under-representation of ethnic minorities in research; 2) Poor data quality on ethnicity; 3) Ethnicity data not being meaningfully analysed. These challenges are especially relevant for research involving under-served migrant populations in the UK. We aimed to review how ethnicity is captured, reported, analysed and theorised within policy-relevant research on ethnic health inequities.

METHODS

We reviewed a selection of the 1% most highly cited population health papers that reported UK data on ethnicity, and extracted how ethnicity was recorded and analysed in relation to health outcomes. We focused on how ethnicity was obtained (i.e. self reported or not), how ethnic groups were categorised, whether justification was provided for any categorisation, and how ethnicity was theorised to be related to health. We held three 1-h-long guided focus groups with 10 young people from Nigeria, Turkistan, Syria, Yemen and Iran. This engagement helped us shape and interpret our findings, and reflect on. 1) How should ethnicity be asked inclusively, and better recorded? 2) Does self-defined ethnicity change over time or context? If so, why?

RESULTS

Of the 44 included papers, most (19; 43%) used self-reported ethnicity, categorised in a variety of ways. Of the 27 papers that aggregated ethnicity, 13 (48%) provided justification. Only 8 of 33 papers explicitly theorised how ethnicity related to health. The focus groups agreed that 1) Ethnicity should not be prescribed by others; individuals could be asked to describe their ethnicity in free-text which researchers could synthesise to extract relevant dimensions of ethnicity for their research; 2) Ethnicity changes over time and context according to personal experience, social pressure, and nationality change; 3) Migrants and non-migrants' lived experience of ethnicity is not fully inter-changeable, even if they share the same ethnic category.

CONCLUSIONS

Ethnicity is a multi-dimensional construct, but this is not currently reflected in UK health research studies, where ethnicity is often aggregated and analysed without justification. Researchers should communicate clearly how ethnicity is operationalised for their study, with appropriate justification for clustering and analysis that is meaningfully theorised. We can only start to tackle ethnic health inequity by treating ethnicity as rigorously as any other variables in our research.

摘要

背景

族裔数据差距涉及解决族裔健康不平等的 3 大挑战:1)少数族裔在研究中的代表性不足;2)族裔数据质量差;3)族裔数据未得到有意义的分析。这些挑战尤其适用于涉及英国服务不足的移民群体的研究。我们旨在审查在族裔健康不平等的政策相关研究中,族裔是如何在研究中被捕捉、报告、分析和理论化的。

方法

我们审查了部分在族裔健康方面引用率最高的 1%的人群健康论文,这些论文报告了英国的族裔数据,并提取了与健康结果相关的族裔记录和分析方式。我们重点关注族裔是如何获得的(即自我报告或非自我报告)、族裔群体如何分类、任何分类是否有理由、以及族裔如何被理论化为与健康相关。我们与来自尼日利亚、图尔斯坦、叙利亚、也门和伊朗的 10 名年轻人进行了三次时长 1 小时的指导性焦点小组讨论。这种参与帮助我们塑造和解释我们的发现,并思考以下问题:1)应该如何以包容性的方式更好地询问和记录族裔?2)自我定义的族裔是否会随时间或环境而变化?如果是,为什么?

结果

在纳入的 44 篇论文中,大多数(19 篇;43%)使用了自我报告的族裔,以各种方式进行分类。在 27 篇汇总族裔的论文中,有 13 篇(48%)提供了理由。只有 33 篇论文中的 8 篇明确阐述了族裔与健康之间的关系。焦点小组一致认为:1)族裔不应该由他人规定;可以要求个人以自由文本形式描述他们的族裔,研究人员可以对其进行综合,以提取研究中与族裔相关的维度;2)族裔会随时间和环境而变化,这取决于个人经历、社会压力和国籍变化;3)移民和非移民对族裔的体验并非完全可以互换,即使他们属于相同的族裔类别。

结论

族裔是一个多维度的概念,但这在英国健康研究中并未得到体现,在这些研究中,族裔通常未经正当理由就被汇总和分析。研究人员应该清楚地说明他们如何为研究操作族裔,并为聚类和分析提供适当的理由,这些理由应具有有意义的理论化。只有将族裔视为我们研究中任何其他变量一样严谨,我们才能开始解决族裔健康不平等问题。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/36b4/10583485/5fe2b399f324/12889_2023_16947_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验