Primary care physicians' attitudes regarding race-based therapies

Antihypertensive Medication Category Prescriptions and Blood Pressure Control in African Surinamese and Ghanaian Migrants with Hypertension in Amsterdam, The Netherlands: The HELIUS Study

West African (WA) migrants in Europe have higher hypertension rates than the host populations. For African migrants, guidelines recommend diuretics and/or calcium channel blockers (CCB) for primary cardiovascular disease prevention, but data on antihypertensive medication (AHM) prescription patterns or related hypertension control rates are lacking. We assessed AHM prescription patterns and its relation to hypertension control among hypertensive WA migrants in the Netherlands compared to the host population. Cross-sectional data from WA or Dutch origin participants from the HELIUS study were used. Participants with treated hypertension and without diabetes, cardiovascular disease, or microalbuminuria were selected. We used logistic and linear regression analyses to assess the association between AHM categories and hypertension control rates (systolic blood pressure (BP) ≤ 140 mmHg and diastolic BP ≤ 90 mmHg) and the systolic BP levels. We compared 999 WA participants and 314 Dutch participants. Hypertension control rates were lower in the WA origin compared to Dutch origin participants (44.3% versus 58.0%, p < 0.001). For WA participants, prescription rates for any AHM category were: CCB (54.8%), diuretics (18.5%) beta-blocking agents (27.3%) and renin-angiotensin system blockers (52.6%). Prescription rates were higher for CCB and similar for diuretics compared to the Dutch participants. Neither CCB nor diuretics were associated with better control rates. Compared to Dutch participants, West African participants had similar diuretic prescriptions but significantly higher prescriptions for CCB. However, neither medications was associated with better hypertension control. Future research should explore physician and patient factors to improve hypertension control.

Clinicians' perspectives on race-specific guidelines for hypertensive treatment

Despite the general consensus that there is no biological basis to race, racial categorization is still used by clinicians to guide diagnosis and treatment plans for certain diseases. In medicine, race is commonly used as a rough proxy for unmeasured social, environmental, and genetic factors. The American College of Cardiology's Eighth Joint National Committee's (JNC 8) guidelines for the treatment of hypertension provide race-specific medication recommendations for Black versus non-Black patients, without strong evidence for race-specific physiological differences in drug response. Clinicians practicing family or geriatric medicine (n = 21) were shown a video of a mock hypertensive patient with genetic ancestry test results that could be viewed as discordant with their phenotype and self-identified race. After viewing the videos, we conducted in-depth interviews to examine how clinicians value and prioritize different cues about race -- namely genetic ancestry data, phenotypic appearance, and self-identified racial classifications - when making treatment decisions in the context of race-specific guidelines, particularly in situations when patients claim mixed-race or complex racial identities. Results indicate that clinicians inconsistently follow the race-specific guidelines for patients whose genetic ancestry test results do not match neatly with their self-identified race or phenotypic features. However, many clinicians also emphasized the importance of clinical experience, side effects, and other factors in their decision making. Clinicians' definitions of race, categorization of the patient's race, and prioritization of racial cues greatly varied. The existence of the race-specific guidelines clearly influences treatment decisions, even as clinicians' express uncertainty about how to incorporate consideration of a patient's genetic ancestry. In light of widespread debate about removal of race from medical diagnostics, researchers should revisit the clinical justification for maintaining these race-specific guidelines. Based on our findings and prior studies indicating a lack of convincing evidence for biological differences by race in medication response, we suggest removing race from the JNC 8 guidelines to avoid risk of perpetuating or exacerbating health disparities in hypertension.

Cardiologists' Perspectives on BiDil and the Use of Race in Drug Prescribing

OBJECTIVES

We explored cardiologists' attitudes and prescribing patterns specific to the use of generic isosorbide dinitrate and hydralazine hydrochloride, and the fixed-dose patented drug, BiDil.

BACKGROUND

Since the Food and Drug Administration approved BiDil in 2005 with an indication for self-identified black patients, disagreement about the appropriateness of race-based drugs has intensified and led to calls for providers and researchers to abandon race-based delimitations. This paper reports empirical evidence of cardiologists' views on BiDil's race-based indication and their ongoing inertia with respect to the debate about BiDil.

METHODS

We conducted a 2010 cross-sectional online survey of members of the Association of Black Cardiologists.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine cardiologists responded to the survey. Most participants (62.7%) prescribed BiDil to their patients. More than 40% of respondents did not prescribe BiDil to any non-African Americans. When considering whether to prescribe BiDil, a patient's race determined by physician assessment was the third most important factor considered by participants. The majority of participants (72.7%) selected symptoms as the most important factor. Most participants (59.2%) perceived race as defining biologically distinct individuals. Respondents prescribed BiDil more often to African American patients than non-African American patients. However, they prescribed the generic components that makeup BiDil to African Americans and non-African American patients similarly.

CONCLUSIONS

The survey provides useful findings that, when viewed within the context of ongoing debates about race-based medicine, show little progress toward appropriately utilizing BiDil to maximize health outcomes, yet, might inform the development of practical and effective guidelines concerning the use of race in medicine.

Physicians' Perceptions of Race and Engagement in Race-Based Clinical Practice: a Mixed-Methods Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis

BACKGROUND

Using race-a socially assigned identity that does not adequately capture human genetic variation-to guide clinical care can result in poor outcomes for racially minoritized patients. This study assessed (1) how physicians conceptualize and use race in their clinical care (race-based care) and (2) physician characteristics associated with race-based care.

METHODS

PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, and Scopus databases were searched. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies written in peer-reviewed, English-language journal articles evaluating US physicians' perceptions of race and physician factors associated with race-based care were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Qualitative studies were evaluated using thematic analysis, and quantitative findings were summarized and combined with qualitative findings in a narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

A total of 1149 articles were identified; 9 (4 qualitative, 5 quantitative) studies met inclusion criteria. Five themes emerged: (1) the belief in race as biological; (2) the use of race to contextualize patients' health; (3) the use of race to counsel patients and determine care; (4) justifications for race-based practice (evidence-based, personal experience, addresses disparities, provides personalized care, increases compliance); and (5) concerns with race-based practice (poorly characterizes patients, normalizes disparities, patient distrust, clinician discomfort, legitimized biological race). In quantitative studies, older age was positively associated with race-based care.

DISCUSSION

Physicians had varied perceptions of race, but many believed race was biological. Concern and support for race-based practice were related to beliefs regarding the evidence for using race in care and the appropriateness of race as a variable in medical research. Older physicians were more likely to use race, which could be due to increased exposure to race-based medical literature, in addition to generational differences in conceptualizations of race. Additional research on the evolution of physicians' perceptions of race, and the role of medical literature in shaping these perceptions, is needed.

Colorblind Racial Ideology and Physician Use of Race in Medical Decision-Making

BACKGROUND

Colorblindness is a racial ideology that minimizes the role of systemic racism in shaping outcomes for racial minorities. Physicians who embrace colorblindness may be less likely to interrogate the role of racism in generating health disparities and less likely to challenge race-based treatment. This study evaluates the association between physician colorblindness and the use of race in medical decision-making.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional survey study, conducted in September 2019, of members of the Minnesota Academy of Family Physicians. The survey included demographic and practice questions and two measures: Color-blind Racial Attitudes Scale (CoBRAS; measuring unawareness of racial privilege, institutional discrimination, and blatant racial issues) and Racial Attributes in Clinical Evaluation (RACE; measuring the use of race in medical decision-making). Multivariable regression analyses assessed the relationship between CoBRAS and RACE.

RESULTS

Our response rate was 17% (267/1595). In a multivariable analysis controlling for physician demographic and practice characteristics, CoBRAS scores were positively associated with RACE (β = 0.05, p = 0.02). When CoBRAS subscales were used in place of the overall CoBRAS score, only unawareness of institutional discrimination was positively associated with RACE (β = 0.18, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians who adhere to a color blind racial ideology, particularly those who deny institutional racism, are more likely to use race in medical decision-making. As the use of race may be due to a colorblind racial ideology, and therefore due to a poor understanding of how systemic racism affects health, more physician education about racism as a health risk is needed.

Thinking with two brains: Student perspectives on the presentation of race in pre-clinical medical education

CONTEXT

There is growing concern that during their education medical students come to believe that 'race' is a biological construct and that differential treatment of patients based on 'race' is clinically beneficial. How 'race' is presented to medical students may influence both their implicit biases and future clinical practices, potentially widening racial disparities in care.

METHODS

We conducted in-depth interviews with twenty-two pre-clinical mostly non-White medical students attending a public medical school in a major metropolitan area in the northeastern United States. Interview content focused on how medical students experience the presentation of race in medical education, use race in their learning experiences, and envision using race as physicians in future clinical encounters. Transcripts were analysed using the framework method and emergent themes were identified.

RESULTS

Participants described being most aware of the presentation of race in board-style questions and least aware of the presentation of race during lectures. They described being aware of race in problem-based learning (PBL) modules if the case revolved around a likely race-disease association. They identified imprecision in how race was presented during lectures and insufficient explanations of causes of racial disparities in health. Participants described feeling ill-prepared to obtain racial self-identification and receiving mixed messages around the utility of race in diagnosing a patient. Participants reported experiences of cognitive dissonance around the presentation of race in board-style questions and lectures.

CONCLUSIONS

Critical evaluation of the presentation of and instruction around 'race' is needed to address whether it is presented as a biological vs. social construct, the level of precision of racial categorisation in curricular content, and the causes of and mechanisms behind race-disease associations. This has the potential to minimise false beliefs about race as a biological construct and the resultant negative impacts on clinical care. Future research could evaluate whether problem-based or experiential (OSCE) learning, in contrast to board-style questions and didactic lectures, are the most effective way to educate students around race in health and illness. Additionally, future research can investigate if the mission (ie social) and composition (Predominantly White Institution or Historically Black College/University) of the faculty impacts student experiences of the presentation of race.

Cardiologists' Perspectives on Race-Based Drug Labels and Prescribing Within the Context of Treating Heart Failure

Purpose: Cardiologists are known to consider patients' race when treating heart failure, but their views on the benefits and harms of this practice are largely undocumented. We set out to explore cardiologists' perspectives on the benefits and harms of race-based drug labels and guidelines. Specifically, we focused on isosorbide dinitrate and hydralazine hydrochloride (sold in a patented form as BiDil), a combination of drugs recommended for the treatment of black patients receiving optimal medical therapy for symptomatic heart failure and reduced ejection fraction.

Methods: We conducted 81 semistructured interviews at an American College of Cardiology Annual meeting to assess cardiologists' and cardiology fellows' attitudes toward the use of race in drug prescribing. Investigators reviewed and coded the interviews using inductive qualitative analysis techniques.

Results: Many participants believed that race-based drug labels might help doctors prescribe effective medications to patients sooner. More than half of the participants expressed concerns, however, that considering race within the context of treating heart failure could potentially harm patients as well. Harms identified included the likelihood that patients who could benefit from a drug may not receive it because of their race; insufficient understanding about gene–drug–environment interactions; and simplistic applications of race in the clinic.

Conclusions: Few participants expressed approval of using race in drug prescribing without recognizing the potential harms, yet most participants stated that they continue to consider race when prescribing isosorbide dinitrate and hydralazine hydrochloride. Within the context of treating heart failure, more open discussions about the benefits and harms of race-based drug labels and prescribing are needed to address cardiologists' concerns.

Factors Related to Physician Clinical Decision-Making for African-American and Hispanic Patients: a Qualitative Meta-Synthesis

Clinical decision-making may have a role in racial and ethnic disparities in healthcare but has not been evaluated systematically. The purpose of this study was to synthesize qualitative studies that explore various aspects of how a patient's African-American race or Hispanic ethnicity may factor into physician clinical decision-making. Using Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library, we identified 13 manuscripts that met inclusion criteria of usage of qualitative methods; addressed US physician clinical decision-making factors when caring for African-American, Hispanic, or Caucasian patients; and published between 2000 and 2017. We derived six fundamental themes that detail the role of patient race and ethnicity on physician decision-making, including importance of race, patient-level issues, system-level issues, bias and racism, patient values, and communication. In conclusion, a non-hierarchical system of intertwining themes influenced clinical decision-making among racial and ethnic minority patients. Future study should systematically intervene upon each theme in order to promote equitable clinical decision-making among diverse racial/ethnic patients.

[An integrative review of drug utilization by the elderly in primary health care]

OBJECTIVE

To identify knowledge produced about drug utilization by the elderly in the primary health care context from 2006 to 2014.

METHOD

An integrative review of the PubMed, LILACS, BDENF, and SCOPUS databases, including qualitative research papers in Portuguese, English, and Spanish. It excluded papers with insufficient information regarding the methodological description.

RESULTS

Search found 633 papers that, after being subjected to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, made up a corpusof 76 publications, mostly in English and produced in the United States, England, and Brazil. Results were pooled in eight thematic categories showing the current trend of drug use in the elderly, notably the use of psychotropics, polypharmacy, the prevention of adverse events, and adoption of technologies to facilitate drug management by the elderly. Studies point out the risks posed to the elderly as a consequence of changes in metabolism and simultaneous use of several drugs.

CONCLUSION

There is strong concern about improving communications between professionals and the elderly in order to promote an exchange of information about therapy, and in this way prevent major health complications in this population.

Physicians' knowledge, beliefs, and use of race and human genetic variation: new measures and insights

BACKGROUND

Understanding physician perspectives on the intersection of race and genomics in clinical decision making is critical as personalized medicine and genomics become more integrated in health care services. There is a paucity of literature in the United States of America (USA) and globally regarding how health care providers understand and use information about race, ethnicity and genetic variation in their clinical decision making. This paper describes the development of three scales related to addressing this gap in the literature: the Bonham and Sellers Genetic Variation Knowledge Assessment Index--GKAI, Health Professionals Beliefs about Race-HPBR, and Racial Attributes in Clinical Evaluation-RACE scales.

METHODS

A cross-sectional, web survey of a national random sample of general internists in the USA (N = 787) was conducted. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to assess the construct validity of the scales. Scale items were developed through focus groups, cognitive interviews, expert advisory panels, and exploratory factor analysis of pilot data.

RESULTS

GKAI was measured as a count of correct answers (Mean = 3.28 SD = 1.17). HPBR yielded two domains: beliefs about race as a biological phenomenon (HPBR-BD, alpha = .69, 4 items) and beliefs about the clinical value of race and genetic variation for understanding risk for disease (HPBR-CD alpha = .61, 3 items). RACE yielded one factor (alpha = .86, 7 items).

CONCLUSIONS

GKAI is a timely knowledge scale that can be used to assess health professional knowledge of race and human genetic variation. HPBR is a promising new tool for assessing health professionals' beliefs about the role of race and its relationship with human genetic variation in clinical practice. RACE offers a valid and reliable tool for assessing explicit use of racial attributes in clinical decision making.

BiDil in the Clinic: An Interdisciplinary Investigation of Physicians' Prescription Patterns of a Race-Based Therapy

BACKGROUND

The African American Heart Failure Trial (A-HeFT) and the FDA approval of BiDil for race-specific prescription have stirred the debate about the scientific and medical status of race. Yet there is no assessment of the potential fallouts of this dispute on physicians' willingness to prescribe the drug. We present here an analysis of the factors influencing physicians' prescription of BiDil and investigate whether exposure to the controversy has an impact on their therapeutic judgments about the drug.

METHODS

We conducted an electronic survey with physicians in the department of internal medicine at the University of Cincinnati. Participants were randomly assigned to two groups, with one group receiving information about the controversy over BiDil. We used various statistical tests, including a linear mixed effects model, to analyze the results.

RESULTS

27% of the participants reported using patients' race as a major factor in making treatment decisions. 33% reported the inefficacy of standard therapies, 25% the severity of the disease, and 15% other unspecified factors as primary determining criteria in prescribing BiDil. With respect to the controversy, 68% of physicians reported that they were not aware of any controversy surrounding BiDil. Physicians' willingness to prescribe BiDil as a therapy was associated with their awareness of the controversy surrounding A-HeFT (p < 0.003). But their willingness to prescribe the therapy along racial lines did not vary significantly with exposure to the controversy.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, physicians prescribe and are willing to prescribe BiDil more to black patients than to white patients. However, physicians' lack of awareness about the controversial scientific status of A-HeFT suggests the need for more efficient ways to convey scientific information about BiDil to clinicians. Furthermore, the uncertainties about the determination of clinical utility of BiDil for the individual patient raise questions about whether this specific race-based therapy is in patients' best interest.

Physicians' anxiety due to uncertainty and use of race in medical decision making

BACKGROUND

The explicit use of race in medical decision making is contested. Researchers have hypothesized that physicians use race in care when they are uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to investigate whether physician anxiety due to uncertainty (ADU) is associated with a higher propensity to use race in medical decision making.

RESEARCH DESIGN

This study included a national cross-sectional survey of general internists.

SUBJECTS

A national sample of 1738 clinically active general internists drawn from the SK&A physician database were included in the study.

MEASURES

ADU is a 5-item measure of emotional reactions to clinical uncertainty. Bonham and Sellers Racial Attributes in Clinical Evaluation (RACE) scale includes 7 items that measure self-reported use of race in medical decision making. We used bivariate regression to test for associations between physician characteristics, ADU, and RACE. Multivariate linear regression was performed to test for associations between ADU and RACE while adjusting for potential confounders.

RESULTS

The mean score on ADU was 19.9 (SD=5.6). Mean score on RACE was 13.5 (SD=5.6). After adjusting for physician demographics, physicians with higher levels of ADU scored higher on RACE (+β=0.08 in RACE, P=0.04, for each 1-point increase in ADU), as did physicians who understood "race" to mean biological or genetic ancestral, rather than sociocultural, group. Physicians who graduated from a US medical school, completed fellowship, and had more white patients scored lower on RACE.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates positive associations between physicians' ADU, meanings attributed to race, and self-reported use of race in medical decision making. Future research should examine the potential impact of these associations on patient outcomes and health care disparities.

Personalized medicine, availability, and group disparity: an inquiry into how physicians perceive and rate the elements and barriers of personalized medicine

BACKGROUND

The success of personalized medicine depends on factors influencing the availability and implementation of its new tools to individualize clinical care. However, little is known about physicians' views of the availability of personalized medicine across racial/ethnic groups and the relationship between perceived availability and clinical implementation. This study examines physicians' perceptions of key elements/tools and potential barriers to personalized medicine in connection with their perceptions of the availability of the latter across subpopulations.

METHODS

Study subjects consisted of physicians recruited from Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center and UC Health. An electronic survey conducted from September 2012 to November 2012 recruited 104 physicians. Wilcoxon rank sum analysis compared groups.

RESULTS

Physicians were divided about whether personalized medicine contributes to health equality, as 37.4% of them believe that personalized medicine is currently available only for some subpopulations. They also rated the importance of racial/ethnic background almost as high as the importance of genetic information in the delivery of personalized medicine. Actual elements of personalized medicine rated highest include family history, drug-drug interaction alerts in medical records, and biomarker measurements to guide therapy. Costs of gene-based therapies and genetic testing were rated the most significant barriers. The ratings of several elements and barriers were associated with perceived availability of personalized medicine across subpopulations.

CONCLUSION

While physicians hold differing views about the availability and implementation of personalized medicine, they likewise establish complex relationships between race/ethnicity and personalized medicine that may carry serious implications for its clinical success.

What are our AIMs? Interdisciplinary Perspectives on the Use of Ancestry Estimation in Disease Research

BACKGROUND

Ancestry estimation serves as a tool to identify genetic contributions to disease but may contribute to racial discrimination and stigmatization. We sought to understand user perspectives on the benefits and harms of ancestry estimation to inform research practice and contribute to debates about the use of race and ancestry in genetics.

METHODS

Key informant interviews with 22 scientists were conducted to examine scientists' understandings of the benefits and harms of ancestry estimation.

RESULTS

Three main perspectives were observed among key informant scientists who use ancestry estimation in genetic epidemiology research. Population geneticists self identified as educators who controlled the meaning and application of ancestry estimation in research. Clinician-researchers were optimistic about the application of ancestry estimation to individualized risk assessment and personalized medicine. Epidemiologists remained ambivalent toward ancestry estimation and suggested a continued role for race in their research.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed an imbalance of control over the meaning and application of ancestry estimation among disciplines that may result in unwarranted or premature translation of ancestry estimation into medicine and public health. Differences in disciplinary perspectives need to be addressed if translational benefits of genetic ancestry estimation are to be realized.

Is race medically relevant? A qualitative study of physicians' attitudes about the role of race in treatment decision-making

Background

The role of patient race in medical decision-making is heavily debated. While some evidence suggests that patient race can be used by physicians to predict disease risk and determine drug therapy, other studies document bias and stereotyping by physicians based on patient race. It is critical, then, to explore physicians' attitudes regarding the medical relevance of patient race.

Methods

We conducted a qualitative study in the United States using ten focus groups of physicians stratified by self-identified race (black or white) and led by race-concordant moderators. Physicians were presented with a medical vignette about a patient (whose race was unknown) with Type 2 diabetes and untreated hypertension, who was also a current smoker. Participants were first asked to discuss what medical information they would need to treat the patient. Then physicians were asked to explicitly discuss the importance of race to the hypothetical patient's treatment. To identify common themes, codes, key words and physician demographics were compiled into a comprehensive table that allowed for examination of similarities and differences by physician race. Common themes were identified using the software package NVivo (QSR International, v7).

Results

Forty self-identified black and 50 self-identified white physicians participated in the study. All physicians - regardless of their own race - believed that medical history, family history, and weight were important for making treatment decisions for the patient. However, black and white physicians reported differences in their views about the relevance of race. Several black physicians indicated that patient race is a central factor for choosing treatment options such as aggressive therapies, patient medication and understanding disease risk. Moreover, many black physicians considered patient race important to understand the patient's views, such as alternative medicine preferences and cultural beliefs about illness. However, few white physicians explicitly indicated that the patient's race was important over-and-above medical history. Instead, white physicians reported that the patient should be treated aggressively regardless of race.

Conclusions

This investigation adds to our understanding about how physicians in the United States consider race when treating patients, and sheds light on issues physicians face when deciding the importance of race in medical decision-making.

Patient reactions to personalized medicine vignettes: an experimental design

PURPOSE

Translational investigation on personalized medicine is in its infancy. Exploratory studies reveal attitudinal barriers to "race-based medicine" and cautious optimism regarding genetically personalized medicine. This study describes patient responses to hypothetical conventional, race-based, or genetically personalized medicine prescriptions.

METHODS

Three hundred eighty-seven participants (mean age = 47 years; 46% white) recruited from a Baltimore outpatient center were randomized to this vignette-based experimental study. They were asked to imagine a doctor diagnosing a condition and prescribing them one of three medications. The outcomes are emotional response to vignette, belief in vignette medication efficacy, experience of respect, trust in the vignette physician, and adherence intention.

RESULTS

Race-based medicine vignettes were appraised more negatively than conventional vignettes across the board (Cohen's d = -0.51-0.57-0.64, P < 0.001). Participants rated genetically personalized comparably with conventional medicine (-0.14-0.15-0.17, P = 0.47), with the exception of reduced adherence intention to genetically personalized medicine (Cohen's d = -0.38-0.41-0.44, P = 0.009). This relative reluctance to take genetically personalized medicine was pronounced for racial minorities (Cohen's d = -0.38-0.31-0.25, P = 0.02) and was related to trust in the vignette physician (change in R = 0.23, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates a relative reluctance to embrace personalized medicine technology, especially among racial minorities, and highlights enhancement of adherence through improved doctor- patient relationships.