Physicians' attitudes toward race, genetics, and clinical medicine

Assessing Bias Toward a Black or White Simulated Patient with Obesity in a Virtual Reality-Based Genomics Encounter

Interpersonal bias based on weight and race is widespread in the clinical setting; it is crucial to investigate how emerging genomics technologies will interact with and influence such biases in the future. The current study uses a virtual reality (VR) simulation to investigate the influence of apparent patient race and provision of genomic information on medical students' implicit and explicit bias toward a virtual patient with obesity. Eighty-four third- and fourth-year medical students (64% female, 42% White) were randomized to interact with a simulated virtual patient who appeared as Black versus White, and to receive genomic risk information for the patient versus a control report. We assessed biased behavior during the simulated encounter and self-reported attitudes toward the virtual patient. Medical student participants tended to express more negative attitudes toward the White virtual patient than the Black virtual patient (both of whom had obesity) when genomic information was absent from the encounter. When genomic risk information was provided, this more often mitigated bias for the White virtual patient, whereas negative attitudes and bias against the Black virtual patient either remained consistent or increased. These patterns underscore the complexity of intersectional identities in clinical settings. Provision of genomic risk information was enough of a contextual shift to alter attitudes and behavior. This research leverages VR simulation to provide an early look at how emerging genomic technologies may differentially influence bias and stereotyping in clinical encounters.

Race-specific FRAX models are evidence-based and support equitable care: a response to the ASBMR Task Force report on Clinical Algorithms for Fracture Risk

Task Force on 'Clinical Algorithms for Fracture Risk' commissioned by the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) Professional Practice Committee has recommended that FRAX® models in the US do not include adjustment for race and ethnicity. This position paper finds that an agnostic model would unfairly discriminate against the Black, Asian and Hispanic communities and recommends the retention of ethnic and race-specific FRAX models for the US, preferably with updated data on fracture and death hazards. In contrast, the use of intervention thresholds based on a fixed bone mineral density unfairly discriminates against the Black, Asian and Hispanic communities in the US. This position of the Working Group on Epidemiology and Quality of Life of the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) is endorsed both by the IOF and the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO).

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.

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.

The Human Pangenome Project: a global resource to map genomic diversity

The human reference genome is the most widely used resource in human genetics and is due for a major update. Its current structure is a linear composite of merged haplotypes from more than 20 people, with a single individual comprising most of the sequence. It contains biases and errors within a framework that does not represent global human genomic variation. A high-quality reference with global representation of common variants, including single-nucleotide variants, structural variants and functional elements, is needed. The Human Pangenome Reference Consortium aims to create a more sophisticated and complete human reference genome with a graph-based, telomere-to-telomere representation of global genomic diversity. Here we leverage innovations in technology, study design and global partnerships with the goal of constructing the highest-possible quality human pangenome reference. Our goal is to improve data representation and streamline analyses to enable routine assembly of complete diploid genomes. With attention to ethical frameworks, the human pangenome reference will contain a more accurate and diverse representation of global genomic variation, improve gene-disease association studies across populations, expand the scope of genomics research to the most repetitive and polymorphic regions of the genome, and serve as the ultimate genetic resource for future biomedical research and precision medicine.

Opioid use and social disadvantage in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain

BACKGROUND

Historically, marginalized patients were prescribed less opioid medication than affluent, white patients. However, because of persistent differential access to nonopioid pain treatments, this direction of disparity in opioid prescribing may have reversed.

OBJECTIVE

To compare social disadvantage and health in patients with chronic pain who were managed with versus without chronic opioid therapy. It was hypothesized that patients routinely prescribed opioids would be more likely to live in socially disadvantaged communities and report worse health.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional analysis of a retrospective cohort defined from medical records from 2000 to 2019.

SETTING

Single tertiary safety net medical center.

PATIENTS

Adult patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain who were managed longitudinally by a physiatric group practice from at least 2011 to 2015 (n = 1173), subgrouped by chronic (≥4 years) adherent opioid usage (n = 356) versus no chronic opioid usage (n = 817).

INTERVENTION

Not applicable.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the unadjusted between-group difference in social disadvantage, defined by living in the worst national quartile of the Area Deprivation Index (ADI). An adjusted effect size was also calculated using logistic regression, with age, sex, race, and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Pain Interference and Physical Function scores as covariates. Secondary outcomes included adjusted differences in health by chronic opioid use (measured by PROMIS).

RESULTS

Patients managed with chronic opioid therapy were more likely to live in a zip code within the most socially disadvantaged national quartile (34.9%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 29.9-39.9%; vs. 24.9%; 95% CI 21.9-28.0%; P < .001), and social disadvantage was independently associated with chronic opioid use (odds ratio [OR] 1.01 per ADI percentile [1.01-1.02]). Opioid use was also associated with meaningfully worse PROMIS Depression (3.8 points [2.4-5.1]), Anxiety (3.0 [1.4-4.5]), and Pain Interference (2.6 [1.7-3.5]) scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients prescribed chronic opioid treatment were more likely to live in socially disadvantaged neighborhoods, and chronic opioid use was independently associated with worse behavioral health. Improving access to multidisciplinary, nonopioid treatments for chronic pain may be key to successfully overcoming the opioid crisis.

Clinical Genetics Lacks Standard Definitions and Protocols for the Collection and Use of Diversity Measures

Genetics researchers and clinical professionals rely on diversity measures such as race, ethnicity, and ancestry (REA) to stratify study participants and patients for a variety of applications in research and precision medicine. However, there are no comprehensive, widely accepted standards or guidelines for collecting and using such data in clinical genetics practice. Two NIH-funded research consortia, the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) and Clinical Sequencing Evidence-generating Research (CSER), have partnered to address this issue and report how REA are currently collected, conceptualized, and used. Surveying clinical genetics professionals and researchers (n = 448), we found heterogeneity in the way REA are perceived, defined, and measured, with variation in the perceived importance of REA in both clinical and research settings. The majority of respondents (>55%) felt that REA are at least somewhat important for clinical variant interpretation, ordering genetic tests, and communicating results to patients. However, there was no consensus on the relevance of REA, including how each of these measures should be used in different scenarios and what information they can convey in the context of human genetics. A lack of common definitions and applications of REA across the precision medicine pipeline may contribute to inconsistencies in data collection, missing or inaccurate classifications, and misleading or inconclusive results. Thus, our findings support the need for standardization and harmonization of REA data collection and use in clinical genetics and precision health research.

Essential(ist) medicine: promoting social explanations for racial variation in biomedical research

Biomedical research has a long and complicated history as a tool of oppression, exemplary of the racial science used to legitimise and maintain racial hierarchies in the USA and abroad. While the explicit racism and racial inferiority supported by this research has dissipated and modern methods of inquiry have increased in sophistication and rigor, contemporary biomedical research continues to essentialise race by distilling racial differences and disparities in health to an underlying, biogenetic source. Focusing on the persistence of essentialism in an era of genomic medicine, this paper examines the deep social origins and social implications of the essentialist viewpoint in biomedicine and how it relates to the broader construction of social and scientific knowledge. Invoking Hacking's 'looping effects' as a useful conceptual tool, I then demonstrate how sociohistorical forces influence scientific and medical research in producing evidence that favours and legitimises a biological construction of race. I extend the looping framework to consider a parallel 'louping' process whereby applying a socially rooted meaning to race in biomedical research results becomes magnified to influence social norms and ideas about race. As many biomedical researchers are motivated by a desire to eliminate racial disparities in outcomes, I argue that greater social acuity allows scientists to avoid individualising and racialising health, challenge preconceived assumptions about the meaning of racial variation in health and medicine and thus promote and strengthen a socioenvironmental focus on how to best improve individuals' and population health. Concluding with a call for structural competency in biomedical research, I suggest that empowering scientists to more freely discuss sociostructural factors in their work allows for the continued use of race in biological and medical research, while social scientists and medical humanities scholars stand to benefit from seeing their work imbued with the cultural authority currently granted to biomedicine.

Inconsistency in race and ethnic classification in pharmacogenetics studies and its potential clinical implications

Introduction

Racial and ethnic categories are frequently used in pharmacogenetics literature to stratify patients; however, these categories can be inconsistent across different studies. To address the ongoing debate on the applicability of traditional concepts of race and ethnicity in the context of precision medicine, we aimed to review the application of current racial and ethnic categories in pharmacogenetics and its potential impact on clinical care.

Methods

One hundred and three total pharmacogenetics papers involving the CYP2C9, CYP2C19, and CYP2D6 genes were analyzed for their country of origin, racial, and ethnic categories used, and allele frequency data. Correspondence between the major continental racial categories promulgated by National Institutes of Health (NIH) and those reported by the pharmacogenetics papers was evaluated.

Results

The racial and ethnic categories used in the papers we analyzed were highly heterogeneous. In total, we found 66 different racial and ethnic categories used which fall under the NIH race category “White”, 47 different racial and ethnic categories for “Asian”, and 62 different categories for “Black”. The number of categories used varied widely based on country of origin: Japan used the highest number of different categories for “White” with 17, Malaysia used the highest number for “Asian” with 24, and the US used the highest number for “Black” with 28. Significant variation in allele frequency between different ethnic subgroups was identified within 3 major continental racial categories.

Conclusion

Our analysis showed that racial and ethnic classification is highly inconsistent across different papers as well as between different countries. Evidence-based consensus is necessary for optimal use of self-identified race as well as geographical ancestry in pharmacogenetics. Common taxonomy of geographical ancestry which reflects specifics of particular countries and is accepted by the entire scientific community can facilitate reproducible pharmacogenetic research and clinical implementation of its results.

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.

Views Of Primary Care Providers On Testing Patients For Genetic Risks For Common Chronic Diseases

We surveyed 488 primary care providers in community and academic practices in New York City in the period 2014-16 about their views on genetic testing for chronic diseases. The majority of the providers, most of whom were current or recent physicians in training, had had formal genetics education and had positive views of the utility of genetic testing. However, they felt unprepared to work with patients at high risk for genetic conditions and were not confident about interpreting test results. Many were concerned that genetic testing might lead to insurance discrimination and lacked trust in companies that offer genetic tests. These findings point to some of the attitudes and knowledge gaps among the providers that should be considered in the clinical implementation of genomic medicine for chronic conditions. Enhanced training, guidelines, clinical tools, and awareness of patient protections might support the effective adoption of genomic medicine by primary care providers.

A content analysis of the views of genetics professionals on race, ancestry, and genetics

Over the past decade, the proliferation of genetic studies on human health and disease has reinvigorated debates about the appropriate role of race and ancestry in research and clinical care. Here we report on the responses of genetics professionals to a survey about their views on race, genetics, and ancestry across the domains of science, medicine, and society. Through a qualitative content analysis of free-text comments from 515 survey respondents, we identified key themes pertaining to multiple meanings of race, the use of race as a proxy for genetic ancestry, and the relevance of race and ancestry to health. Our findings suggest that for many genetics professionals the questions of what race is and what race means remain both professionally and personally contentious. Looking ahead as genomics is translated into the practice of precision medicine and as learning health care systems offer continued improvements in care through integrated research, we argue for nuanced considerations of both race and genetic ancestry across research and care settings.

Physician Knowledge of Human Genetic Variation, Beliefs About Race and Genetics, and Use of Race in Clinical Decision-making

BACKGROUND

Race in the USA has an enduring connection to health and well-being. It is often used as a proxy for ancestry and genetic variation, although self-identified race does not establish genetic risk of disease for an individual patient. How physicians reconcile these seemingly paradoxical facts as they make clinical decisions is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To examine physicians' genetic knowledge and beliefs about race with their use of race in clinical decision-making DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey of a national sample of clinically active general internists RESULTS: Seven hundred eighty-seven physicians completed the survey. Regression models indicate that genetic knowledge was not significantly associated with use of race. However, physicians who agreed with notions of race as a biological phenomenon and those who agreed that race has clinical importance were more likely to report using race in their decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

Genomic and precision medicine holds considerable promise for narrowing the gap in health among racial groups in the USA. For this promise to be realized, our findings suggest that future research and education efforts related to race, genomics, and health must go beyond educating health care providers about common genetic conditions to delving into assumptions about race and genetics.

Racialised prescribing: enacting race/ethnicity in clinical practice guidelines and in accounts of clinical practice

This article examines the articulation and enactment of racialised classifications in clinical practice guidelines and in accounts of clinical practice. It contributes to debates about racialisation in medicine and its consequences. The research centred on the case study of prescribing guidelines for hypertension in England and Wales, drawing on documentary sources and semi-structured expert interviews. We found that conceptual and socio-political uncertainties existed about how to interpret the designation 'Black patients' and about the practices for identifying patients' race/ethnicity. To 'close' uncertainties, and thus produce the guidelines and treat patients, respondents drew authority from disparate elements of the 'topologies of race'. This has implications for understanding processes of racialisation and for the future use of racialised clinical practice guidelines. We argue that clinical practice guidelines play a 'nodal' role in racialisation by forming an authoritative material connection that creates a path for translating racialised research into racialised healthcare practice, and that they carry with them implicit conceptual and socio-political uncertainties that are liable to create inconsistencies in healthcare practice.

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.

Nurses' Use of Race in Clinical Decision Making

PURPOSE

To examine nurses' self-reported use of race in clinical evaluation.

DESIGN

This cross-sectional study analyzed data collected from three separate studies using the Genetics and Genomics in Nursing Practice Survey, which includes items about use of race and genomic information in nursing practice. The Racial Attributes in Clinical Evaluation (RACE) scale was used to measure explicit clinical use of race among nurses from across the United States.

METHODS

Multivariate regression analysis was used to examine associations between RACE score and individual-level characteristics and beliefs in 5,733 registered nurses.

FINDINGS

Analysis revealed significant relationships between RACE score and nurses' race and ethnicity, educational level, and views on the clinical importance of patient demographic characteristics. Asian nurses reported RACE scores 1.41 points higher than White nurses (p < .001), and Black nurses reported RACE scores 0.55 points higher than White nurses (p < .05). Compared to diploma-level nurses, the baccalaureate-level nurses reported 0.69 points higher RACE scores (p < .05), master's-level nurses reported 1.63 points higher RACE scores (p < .001), and doctorate-level nurses reported 1.77 points higher RACE scores (p < .01). In terms of clinical importance of patient characteristics, patient race and ethnicity corresponded to a 0.54-point increase in RACE score (p < .001), patient genes to a 0.21-point increase in RACE score (p < .001), patient family history to a 0.15-point increase in RACE score (p < .01), and patient age to a 0.19-point increase in RACE score (p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Higher reported use of race among minority nurses may be due, in part, to differential levels of racial self-awareness. A relatively linear positive relationship between level of nursing degree nursing education and use of race suggests that a stronger foundation of knowledge about genetic ancestry, population genetics and the concept "race" and genetic ancestry may increase in clinical decision making could allow nurses to more appropriately use of race in clinical care. Integrating patient demographic characteristics into clinical decisions is an important component of nursing practice.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Registered nurses provide care for diverse racial and ethnic patient populations and stand on the front line of clinical care, making them essential for reducing racial and ethnic disparities in healthcare delivery. Exploring registered nurses' individual-level characteristics and clinical use of race may provide a more comprehensive understanding of specific training needs and inform nursing education and practice.

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.

Genes, race, and culture in clinical care: racial profiling in the management of chronic illness

Race, although an unscientific concept, remains prominent in health research and clinical guidelines, and is routinely invoked in clinical practice. In interviews with 58 primary care clinicians we explored how they understand and apply concepts of racial difference. We found wide agreement that race is important to consider in clinical care. They explained the effect of race on health, drawing on common assumptions about the biological, class, and cultural characteristics of racial minorities. They identified specific race-based clinical strategies for only a handful of conditions and were inconsistent in the details of what they said should be done for minority patients. We conclude that using race in clinical medicine promotes and maintains the illusion of inherent racial differences and may result in minority patients receiving care aimed at presumed racial group characteristics, rather than care selected as specifically appropriate for them as individuals.

Why is genetic screening for autosomal dominant disorders underused in families? The case of hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia

PURPOSE

Appropriate management of autosomal dominant disorders reduces morbidity and mortality but relies on identifying which family members are affected. Genetic testing may identify relatives needing follow-up but is underused. We conducted this study to identify barriers to genetic testing for one disorder, hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia.

METHODS

Surveys and online discussion groups with people from hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia families.

RESULTS

Multiple barriers to hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia genetic testing were identified including lack of knowledge about genetic testing, problems with access, and emotional barriers. Many participants did not understand the rationale for hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia testing or benefits of early detection; believed that genetic testing is expensive and not covered by insurance; and believed that primary care providers do not know how to order genetic testing. Access to hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia testing is limited by distance from a hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia center or a genetics clinic. Emotional barriers include fear of insurance discrimination; denial of having hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia or being at risk; and guilt and stigma.

CONCLUSION

Voluntary disease organizations should develop and disseminate brief educational materials that describe the rationale for genetic testing and emphasize the benefits of early detection and treatment. In addition, laboratories offering genetic testing should provide support for primary care physicians to order and interpret genetic tests.

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.

Future health applications of genomics: priorities for communication, behavioral, and social sciences research

Despite the quickening momentum of genomic discovery, the communication, behavioral, and social sciences research needed for translating this discovery into public health applications has lagged behind. The National Human Genome Research Institute held a 2-day workshop in October 2008 convening an interdisciplinary group of scientists to recommend forward-looking priorities for translational research. This research agenda would be designed to redress the top three risk factors (tobacco use, poor diet, and physical inactivity) that contribute to the four major chronic diseases (heart disease, type 2 diabetes, lung disease, and many cancers) and account for half of all deaths worldwide. Three priority research areas were identified: (1) improving the public's genetic literacy in order to enhance consumer skills; (2) gauging whether genomic information improves risk communication and adoption of healthier behaviors more than current approaches; and (3) exploring whether genomic discovery in concert with emerging technologies can elucidate new behavioral intervention targets. Important crosscutting themes also were identified, including the need to: (1) anticipate directions of genomic discovery; (2) take an agnostic scientific perspective in framing research questions asking whether genomic discovery adds value to other health promotion efforts; and (3) consider multiple levels of influence and systems that contribute to important public health problems. The priorities and themes offer a framework for a variety of stakeholders, including those who develop priorities for research funding, interdisciplinary teams engaged in genomics research, and policymakers grappling with how to use the products born of genomics research to address public health challenges.

Future health applications of genomics: priorities for communication, behavioral, and social sciences research

Despite the quickening momentum of genomic discovery, the communication, behavioral, and social sciences research needed for translating this discovery into public health applications has lagged behind. The National Human Genome Research Institute held a 2-day workshop in October 2008 convening an interdisciplinary group of scientists to recommend forward-looking priorities for translational research. This research agenda would be designed to redress the top three risk factors (tobacco use, poor diet, and physical inactivity) that contribute to the four major chronic diseases (heart disease, type 2 diabetes, lung disease, and many cancers) and account for half of all deaths worldwide. Three priority research areas were identified: (1) improving the public's genetic literacy in order to enhance consumer skills; (2) gauging whether genomic information improves risk communication and adoption of healthier behaviors more than current approaches; and (3) exploring whether genomic discovery in concert with emerging technologies can elucidate new behavioral intervention targets. Important crosscutting themes also were identified, including the need to: (1) anticipate directions of genomic discovery; (2) take an agnostic scientific perspective in framing research questions asking whether genomic discovery adds value to other health promotion efforts; and (3) consider multiple levels of influence and systems that contribute to important public health problems. The priorities and themes offer a framework for a variety of stakeholders, including those who develop priorities for research funding, interdisciplinary teams engaged in genomics research, and policymakers grappling with how to use the products born of genomics research to address public health challenges.

Primary care physicians' attitudes regarding race-based therapies

BACKGROUND

There is little to no information on whether race should be considered in the exam room by those who care for and treat patients. How primary care physicians understand the relationship between genes, race and drugs has the potential to influence both individual care and racial and ethnic health disparities.

OBJECTIVE

To describe physicians' use of race-based therapies, with specific attention to the case of BiDil (isosorbide dinitrate/hydralazine), the first drug approved by the FDA for a race-specific indication, and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ace) inhibitors in their black and white patients.

DESIGN

Qualitative study involving 10 focus groups with 90 general internists.

PARTICIPANTS

Black and white general internists recruited from community and academic internal medicine practices participated in the focus groups.Of the participants 64% were less than 45 years of age, and 73% were male.

APPROACH

The focus groups were transcribed verbatim, and the data were analyzed using template analysis.

RESULTS

There was a range of opinions relating to the practice of race-based therapies. Physicians who were supportive of race-based therapies cited several potential benefits including motivating patients to comply with medical therapy and promoting changes in health behaviors by creating the perception that the medication and therapies were tailored specifically for them. Physicians acknowledged that in clinical practice some medications vary in their effectiveness across different racial groups, with some physicians citing the example of ace inhibitors. However, physicians voiced concern that black patients who could benefit from ace inhibitors may not be receiving them. They were also wary that the category of race reflected meaningful differences on a genetic level. In the case of BiDil, physicians were vocal in their concern that commercial interests were the primary impetus behind its creation.

CONCLUSIONS

Primary care physicians' opinions regarding race-based therapy reveal a nuanced understanding of race-based therapies and a wariness of their use by physicians.