TY - JOUR
T1 - Descriptive Analysis of the 2014 Race-Based Healthcare Disparities Measurement Literature
AU - Goodman, Melody S.
AU - Gilbert, Keon L.
AU - Hudson, Darrell
AU - Milam, Laurel
AU - Colditz, Graham A.
N1 - Funding Information:
Funding The work of Dr. Goodman is supported by the Barnes-Jewish Hospital Foundation, Siteman Cancer Center, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute grant U54CA153460 and Washington University School of Medicine Faculty Diversity Scholars Program. Dr. Gilbert is supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation New Connections grant and the Saint Louis University Faculty Research Leave Program. Dr. Colditz is supported by an American Cancer Society Clinical Research Professorship and the Barnes-Jewish Hospital Foundation. The funding agreements ensured the authors’ independence in designing and conducting the study; collecting, analyzing, and interpreting the data; and preparation of the manuscript reporting the results.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2016, W. Montague Cobb-NMA Health Institute.
PY - 2017/10/1
Y1 - 2017/10/1
N2 - Importance: There are more than 500 articles in the 2014 race-based healthcare disparities literature across a broad array of diseases and outcomes. However, unlike many other forms of research (e.g., clinical trials and systematic reviews), there are no required reporting guidelines when submitting results of disparities studies to journals. Objective: This study describes the race-based healthcare disparities measurement literature in terms of study design, journal characteristics, generation of health disparities research, type of disparity measure used, and adherence to disparities measurement guidelines. Methods: We searched three databases of peer-reviewed literature, PubMed, Ovid Medline, and JSTOR, for English language articles published in 2014 on racial/ethnic healthcare disparities. Studies must have quantitatively measured the difference in health outcomes between two racial/ethnic groups in order to be included. Our final sample included 266 studies from 167 medical and public health journals. Findings: Only 7 % (n = 19) of articles reported both an absolute and relative measure of disparity; the majority of studies (64 %, n = 171) reported only a relative measure of effect. Most studies were published in clinical journals (74 %, n = 198), used secondary data (86 %, n = 229), and calculated black-white disparities (82 %, n = 218). The most common condition studied was cancer (25 %, n = 67), followed by a surgical procedure (18 %, n = 48). On average, articles in the sample only met 61 % of the applicable guidelines on reporting of disparities. Conclusions and Relevance: To be able to synthesize findings in the racial disparities literature (meta-analysis), there is a need for the use of consistent methods for quantifying disparities and reporting in the literature. A more consistent battery of measures and consistent reporting across studies may help speed our understanding of the origins and development of solutions to address healthcare disparities. Despite guidelines for best practices in reporting disparities, there is a lack of adherence in the current literature.
AB - Importance: There are more than 500 articles in the 2014 race-based healthcare disparities literature across a broad array of diseases and outcomes. However, unlike many other forms of research (e.g., clinical trials and systematic reviews), there are no required reporting guidelines when submitting results of disparities studies to journals. Objective: This study describes the race-based healthcare disparities measurement literature in terms of study design, journal characteristics, generation of health disparities research, type of disparity measure used, and adherence to disparities measurement guidelines. Methods: We searched three databases of peer-reviewed literature, PubMed, Ovid Medline, and JSTOR, for English language articles published in 2014 on racial/ethnic healthcare disparities. Studies must have quantitatively measured the difference in health outcomes between two racial/ethnic groups in order to be included. Our final sample included 266 studies from 167 medical and public health journals. Findings: Only 7 % (n = 19) of articles reported both an absolute and relative measure of disparity; the majority of studies (64 %, n = 171) reported only a relative measure of effect. Most studies were published in clinical journals (74 %, n = 198), used secondary data (86 %, n = 229), and calculated black-white disparities (82 %, n = 218). The most common condition studied was cancer (25 %, n = 67), followed by a surgical procedure (18 %, n = 48). On average, articles in the sample only met 61 % of the applicable guidelines on reporting of disparities. Conclusions and Relevance: To be able to synthesize findings in the racial disparities literature (meta-analysis), there is a need for the use of consistent methods for quantifying disparities and reporting in the literature. A more consistent battery of measures and consistent reporting across studies may help speed our understanding of the origins and development of solutions to address healthcare disparities. Despite guidelines for best practices in reporting disparities, there is a lack of adherence in the current literature.
KW - Descriptive analysis
KW - Literature review
KW - Measures
KW - Methods
KW - Racial health disparities
KW - Systematic review
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85013676082&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85013676082&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s40615-016-0281-5
DO - 10.1007/s40615-016-0281-5
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85013676082
SN - 2197-3792
VL - 4
SP - 796
EP - 802
JO - Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities
JF - Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities
IS - 5
ER -