Diversity Beyond Race and Ethnicity: Enhancing Inclusion With an Expanded Definition of Diversity

Racial and Ethnic Minorities Underrepresented in Pain Management Guidelines for Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Total joint arthroplasty aims to improve quality of life and functional outcomes for all patients, primarily by reducing their pain. This goal requires clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) that equitably represent and enroll patients from all racial/ethnic groups. To our knowledge, there has been no formal evaluation of the racial/ethnic composition of the patient population in the studies that informed the leading CPGs on the topic of pain management after arthroplasty surgery.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

Using papers included in the 2021 Anesthesia and Analgesia in Total Joint Arthroplasty Clinical Practice Guidelines and comparing them with US National census data, we asked: (1) What is the representation of racial/ethnic groups in randomized controlled trials compared with their representation in the US national population? (2) Is there a relationship between the reporting of racial/ethnic groups and year of data collection/publication, location of study, funding source, or guideline section?

METHODS

Participant demographic data (study year published, study type, guideline section, year of data collection, study site, study funding, study size, gender, age, and race/ethnicity) were collected from articles cited by this guideline. Studies were included if they were full text, were primary research articles conducted primarily within the United States, and if they reported racial and ethnic characteristics of the participants. The exclusion criteria included duplicate articles, articles that included the same participant population (only the latest dated article was included), and the following article types: systematic reviews, nonsystematic reviews, terminology reports, professional guidelines, expert opinions, population-based studies, surgical trials, retrospective cohort observational studies, prospective cohort observational studies, cost-effectiveness studies, and meta-analyses. Eighty-two percent (223 of 271) of articles met inclusion criteria. Our original literature search yielded 27 papers reporting the race/ethnicity of participants, including 24 US-based studies and three studies conducted in other countries; only US-based studies were utilized as the focus of this study. We defined race/ethnicity reporting as the listing of participants' race or ethnicity in the body, tables, figures, or supplemental data of a study. National census information from 2000 to 2019 was then used to generate a representation quotient (RQ), which compared the representation of racial/ethnic groups within study populations to their respective demographic representation in the national population. An RQ value greater than 1 indicates an overrepresented group and an RQ value less than 1 indicates an underrepresented group, relative to the US population. Primary outcome measures of RQ value versus time of publication for each racial/ethnic group were evaluated with linear regression analysis, and race reporting and manuscript parameters were analyzed with chi-square analyses.

RESULTS

Two US-based studies reported race and ethnicity independently. Among the 24 US-based studies reporting race/ethnicity, the overall RQ was 0.70 for Black participants, 0.09 for Hispanic participants, 0.1 for American Indian/Alaska Natives, 0 for Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders, 0.08 for Asian participants, and 1.37 for White participants, meaning White participants were overrepresented by 37%, Black participants were underrepresented by 30%, Hispanic participants were underrepresented by 91%, Asian participants were underrepresented by 92%, American Indian/Alaska Natives were 90% underrepresented, and Native Hawaiian Pacific Islanders were virtually not represented compared with the US national population. On chi-square analysis, there were differences between race/ethnicity reporting among studies with academic, industry, and dual-supported funding sources (χ 2 = 7.449; p = 0.02). Differences were also found between race/ethnicity reporting among US-based and non-US-based studies (χ 2 = 36.506; p < 0.001), with 93% (25 of 27) of US-based studies reporting race as opposed to only 7% (2 of 27) of non-US-based studies. Finally, there was no relationship between race/ethnicity reporting and the year of data collection or guideline section referenced.

CONCLUSION

The 2021 Anesthesia and Analgesia in Total Joint Arthroplasty Clinical Practice Guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations that reflect the current standards in orthopaedic surgery, but the studies upon which they are based overwhelmingly underenroll and underreport racial/ethnic minorities relative to their proportions in the US population. As these factors impact analgesic administration, their continued neglect may perpetuate inequities in outcomes after TJA.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Our study demonstrates that all non-White racial/ethnic groups were underrepresented relative to their proportion of the US population in the 2021 Anesthesia and Analgesia in Total Joint Arthroplasty Clinical Practice Guidelines, underscoring a weakness in the orthopaedic surgery evidence base and questioning the overall external validity and generalizability of these combined CPGs. An effort should be made to equitably enroll and report outcomes for all racial/ethnic groups in any updated CPGs.

Underrepresentation of Non-White Participants in the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Guidelines for Surgical Management of Knee Osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to examine the racial and ethnic representation in studies included in the 2015 American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Surgical Management of the Knee Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline relative to their representation of the United States (US).

METHODS

The demographic characteristics reported in articles included in the 2015 American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Surgical Management of the Knee Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline were analyzed. The primary outcome of interest was the representation quotient, which is the ratio of the proportion of a racial/ethnic group in the guideline studies relative to their proportion in the US. There were 211 studies included, of which 15 (7%) reported race. There were 35 studies based in the US and 7 of the US-based studies reported race.

RESULTS

No US-based studies reported race and ethnicity separately, no studies reported American Indian/Alaska Native participants and no US-based studies reported Asian participants. The representation quotient of US-based studies was 0.66 for Black participants, 0.33 for Hispanic participants, and 1.30 for White participants, which indicates a relative over-representation of White participants compared to national proportions.

CONCLUSION

This study illustrated that the evidence base for the surgical management of knee osteoarthritis has been constructed from studies which fail to consider race and ethnicity. Of those US-based studies which do report race or ethnicity, study cohorts do not reflect the US population. These results illustrate a disparity in clinical orthopedic surgical evidence and highlight the need for improved research recruitment strategies.

Strategies of inclusion: The tradeoffs of pursuing "baked in" diversity through place-based recruitment

US funding agencies have begun to institutionalize expectations that biomedical studies achieve defined thresholds for diversity among research participants, including in precision medicine research (PMR). In this paper, we examine how practices of recruitment have unfolded in the wake of these diversity mandates. We find that a very common approach to seeking diverse participants leverages understandings of spatial, geographic, and site diversity as proxies and access points for participant diversity. That is, PMR investigators recruit from a diverse sampling of geographic areas, neighborhoods, sites, and institutional settings as both opportunistic but also meaningful ways to "bake in" participant diversity. In this way, logics of geographic and institutional diversity shift the question from who to recruit, to where. However, despite seeing geographic and site diversity as social and scientific 'goods' in the abstract and as key to getting diverse participants, PMR teams told us that working with diverse sites was often difficult in practice due to constraints in funding, time, and personnel, and inadequate research infrastructures and capacity. Thus, the ways in which these geographic and institutional diversity strategies were implemented resulted ultimately in limiting the meaningful inclusion of populations and organizations that had not previously participated in biomedical research and reproduced the inclusion of institutions that are already represented. These prevailing assumptions about and practices of "baked-in" diversity in fact exacerbate and produce other forms of inequity, in research capacity and research representation. These findings underscore how structural inequities in research resources must be addressed for diversity to be achieved in both research sites and research participants.

Dialogue, Worldview Inclusivity, and Intra-Religious Diversity: Addressing Diversity through Religious Education in the Finnish Basic Education Curriculum

The purpose of this article is to discuss how religious and non-religious diversity are addressed in the current national core curriculum for religious education (RE) in basic education in Finland. We first discuss the educational developments behind the Finnish curricular reform, and then focus on issues related to RE and RE research in Finland. We then describe the key contextual contributors to the current RE curriculum in basic education before proceeding to examine how diversity is addressed in the curriculum. Based on our examination, we identify four themes in the curriculum: inter-religious diversity, religious and non-religious worldviews, cultural diversity, and dialogue skills. In RE, diversity is largely addressed within a framework of religion and multiculturality. The article ends with a call for renewal of research foci in RE.

Establishing a Mutually Respectful Environment in the Workplace: A Toolbox for Performance Excellence

Most health care professionals spend a substantial amount of their time at the workplace. Our interactions with team members can define our daily experiences, impact our work performance, and influence our overall job satisfaction. Over the last years, how we interact with colleagues and patients has changed with the introduction of social media, a tenser political climate, and an evolving health care system. In oncology, a team can be composed of medical students, clinicians, and support and administrative staff within a heavy emotional environment where some of our patients are facing the risk of early mortality and most are dealing with the unmeasurable burden of cancer. Many of these factors can increase the risk for professionalism lapses. We discuss common challenges faced in the practice of cancer care, including the generational gap between medical trainees and senior members, gender disparities, and microaggressions. Microaggressions represent verbal, behavioral, and environmental indignities that communicate hostile, derogatory, and negative slights that insult a target person or group. Microaggressions should not be accepted as the norm in the workplace. It is essential to recognize these negative behaviors and manage them effectively to reduce or even prevent the long-term toxicities that these behaviors can bring to the workplace environment. Ultimately, we must acknowledge that these issues exist and remember that education and collaboration are the pillars of an inclusive workplace. We owe such efforts to our patients who deserve good care, to our partners in the care of patients so that they feel supported and included, and to ourselves.