Applying anti-racist approaches to informatics: a new lens on traditional frames

Health organizations and systems rely on increasingly sophisticated informatics infrastructure. Without anti-racist expertise, the field risks reifying and entrenching racism in information systems. We consider ways the informatics field can recognize institutional, systemic, and structural racism and propose the use of the Public Health Critical Race Praxis (PHCRP) to mitigate and dismantle racism in digital forms. We enumerate guiding questions for stakeholders along with a PHCRP-Informatics framework. By focusing on (1) critical self-reflection, (2) following the expertise of well-established scholars of racism, (3) centering the voices of affected individuals and communities, and (4) critically evaluating practice resulting from informatics systems, stakeholders can work to minimize the impacts of racism. Informatics, informed and guided by this proposed framework, will help realize the vision of health systems that are more fair, just, and equitable.

The Public Performativity of Trust

Building trust between academic medical centers and certain communities they depend on in the research process is hard, particularly when those communities consist of minoritized or historically marginalized populations. Some believe that engagement activities like the creation of advisory boards, town halls, or a research workforce that looks more like community members will establish or reestablish trust between academic medical centers and racialized communities. However, without systematic approaches to dismantle racism, those well-intended actions become public performativity, and trust building will fail. In this essay, we draw upon foundational ethical principles of trust, distrust, and trust building; apply the concept of bounded justice to performative trust acts; and center the works of Black and Indigenous feminist bioethicists to revisit some of the wisdom and valuable lessons they have contributed. Rebuilding trust is hard to do because people and institutions are often not honest about how hard it is and there is no simple box-checking task that can disentangle our society's injustices, but there are steps to take in this direction. Individuals and institutions can recognize valuable relevant work that has already been written, partake in critical reflection, and then apply insights gained to take both small and sustainable steps toward transformational change and deeper trust.

A Critical Analysis of White Racial Framing and Comfort with Medical Research

OBJECTIVE

Analyze racial differences in comfort with medical research using an alternative to the traditional approach that treats white people as a raceless norm.

METHODS

Quantitative analysis of survey responses (n = 1,570) from Black and white residents of the US to identify relationships between perceptions of research as a right or a risk, and comfort participating in medical research.

RESULTS

A lower proportion of white respondents reported that medical experimentation occurred without patient consent (p < 0.001) and a higher proportion of white respondents reported that it should be their right to participate in medical research (p = 0.02). Belief in one's right to participate was significantly predictive of comfort (b = 0.37, p < 0.001). Belief in experimentation without consent was significantly predictive of comfort for white respondents but not for Black respondents in multivariable analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

A rights-based orientation and less concern about the risks of medical research among white respondents demonstrate comparative advantage. Efforts to diversify medical research may perpetuate structural racism if they do not (1) critically engage with whiteness and its role in comfort with participation, and (2) identify and respond specifically to the needs of Black patients.

"Bounded Equity: The Limits of Economic Models of Social Justice in Cannabis Legislation"

Social equity provisions in cannabis legislation are premised on the hope that the profit generated around adult-use cannabis can be leveraged to ameliorate the damage done by racially biased enforcement of prohibition in black and brown communities. As such, they encapsulate an attempt to reconcile the history of racism in the enforcement of cannabis law through its new future as a profit generating commodity. These programs are gaining traction, but with minimal empirical examination. The development and implementation of these programs raises a number of questions in need of study that we outline in this paper. We argue that Creary's concept of bounded justice-which critiques the inherent limitations of social justice projects that ignore structural forms of social exclusion-can provide a framework for critical understanding of the limitations of such programs, ethnographically grounded empirical research, and a framework for evaluating the justice impacts of legislation. Specifically, we argue that in order to interrogate the possibilities for social justice projects around cannabis, we must address equity at a deeper level by working with communities to investigate hyper-localized and historical factors that have influenced systems and structures.

Laboratory-Based Inequity in Thrombosis and Hemostasis: Review of the Evidence

The concept of normal in hematology, similar to that in other areas of medicine, is anchored to the perspective of those setting the standard. This means that several laboratory reference intervals and approaches to the conditions of thrombosis and hemostasis are influenced by the vantage point of those in power. Structural inequity, including systemic racism and sexism, can lead to inappropriate normalization of disease states, such as anemia or iron deficiency, or delayed diagnoses, such as in von Willebrand disease. This review will focus on how laboratory reference intervals perpetuate the cycles of inequity in care of patients with disorders of thrombosis and hemostasis. We provide examples and case studies in maternal mortality as well as in disorders such as von Willebrand disease and iron deficiency, question physiology versus pathophysiology, acknowledge the distinction between social constructs and biologic influence, and highlight opportunities for much-needed restructuring in areas such as defining anemia and iron deficiency.

Public Deliberation Process on Patient Perspectives on Health Information Sharing: Evaluative Descriptive Study

BACKGROUND

Precision oncology is one of the fastest-developing domains of personalized medicine and is one of many data-intensive fields. Policy for health information sharing that is informed by patient perspectives can help organizations align practice with patient preferences and expectations, but many patients are largely unaware of the complexities of how and why clinical health information is shared.

OBJECTIVE

This paper evaluates the process of public deliberation as an approach to understanding the values and preferences of current and former patients with cancer regarding the use and sharing of health information collected in the context of precision oncology.

METHODS

We conducted public deliberations with patients who had a current or former cancer diagnosis. A total of 61 participants attended 1 of 2 deliberative sessions (session 1, n=28; session 2, n=33). Study team experts led two educational plenary sessions, and trained study team members then facilitated discussions with small groups of participants. Participants completed pre- and postdeliberation surveys measuring knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about precision oncology and data sharing. Following informational sessions, participants discussed, ranked, and deliberated two policy-related scenarios in small groups and in a plenary session. In the analysis, we evaluate our process of developing the deliberative sessions, the knowledge gained by participants during the process, and the extent to which participants reasoned with complex information to identify policy preferences.

RESULTS

The deliberation process was rated highly by participants. Participants felt they were listened to by their group facilitator, that their opinions were respected by their group, and that the process that led to the group's decision was fair. Participants demonstrated improved knowledge of health data sharing policies between pre- and postdeliberation surveys, especially regarding the roles of physicians and health departments in health information sharing. Qualitative analysis of reasoning revealed that participants recognized complexity, made compromises, and engaged with trade-offs, considering both individual and societal perspectives related to health data sharing.

CONCLUSIONS

The deliberative approach can be valuable for soliciting the input of informed patients on complex issues such as health information sharing policy. Participants in our two public deliberations demonstrated that giving patients information about a complex topic like health data sharing and the opportunity to reason with others and discuss the information can help garner important insights into policy preferences and concerns. Data on public preferences, along with the rationale for information sharing, can help inform policy-making processes. Increasing transparency and patient engagement is critical to ensuring that data-driven health care respects patient autonomy and honors patient values and expectations.

Patient-Reported Experiences of Discrimination in the US Health Care System

Importance

Although considerable evidence exists on the association between negative health outcomes and daily experiences of discrimination, less is known about such experiences in the health care system at the national level. It is critically necessary to measure and address discrimination in the health care system to mitigate harm to patients and as part of the larger ongoing project of responding to health inequities.

Objectives

To (1) identify the national prevalence of patient-reported experiences of discrimination in the health care system, the frequency with which they occur, and the main types of discrimination experienced and (2) examine differences in the prevalence of discrimination across demographic groups.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional national survey fielded online in May 2019 used a general population sample from the National Opinion Research Center's AmeriSpeak Panel. Surveys were sent to 3253 US adults aged 21 years or older, including oversamples of African American respondents, Hispanic respondents, and respondents with annual household incomes below 200% of the federal poverty level.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Analyses drew on 3 survey items measuring patient-reported experiences of discrimination, the primary types of discrimination experienced, the frequency with which they occurred, and the demographic and health-related characteristics of the respondents. Weighted bivariable and multivariable logistic regressions were conducted to assess associations between experiences of discrimination and several demographic and health-related characteristics.

Results

Of 2137 US adult respondents who completed the survey (66.3% response rate; unweighted 51.0% female; mean [SD] age, 49.6 [16.3] years), 458 (21.4%) reported that they had experienced discrimination in the health care system. After applying weights to generate population-level estimates, most of those who had experienced discrimination (330 [72.0%]) reported experiencing it more than once. Of 458 reporting experiences of discrimination, racial/ethnic discrimination was the most common type (79 [17.3%]), followed by discrimination based on educational or income level (59 [12.9%]), weight (53 [11.6%]), sex (52 [11.4%]), and age (44 [9.6%]). In multivariable analysis, the odds of experiencing discrimination were higher for respondents who identified as female (odds ratio [OR], 1.88; 95% CI, 1.50-2.36) and lower for older respondents (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.98-0.99), respondents earning at least $50 000 in annual household income (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.60-0.95), and those reporting good (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.46-0.75) or excellent (OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.31-0.56) health compared with poor or fair health.

Conclusions and Relevance

The results of this study suggest that experiences of discrimination in the health care system appear more common than previously recognized and deserve considerable attention. These findings contribute to understanding of the scale at which interpersonal discrimination occurs in the US health care system and provide crucial evidence for next steps in assessing the risks and consequences of such discrimination. The findings also point to a need for further analysis of how interpersonal discrimination interacts with structural inequities and social determinants of health to build effective responses.

A study of prospective surveillance for inhibitors among persons with haemophilia in the United States

Inhibitors are a rare but serious complication of treatment of patients with haemophilia. Phase III clinical trials enrol too few patients to adequately assess new product inhibitor risk. This project explores the feasibility of using a public health surveillance system to conduct national surveillance for inhibitors. Staff at 17 U.S. haemophilia treatment centres (HTC) enrolled patients with haemophilia A and B into this prospective study. HTC staff provided detailed historic data on product use and inhibitors at baseline, and postenrolment patients provided monthly detailed infusion logs. A central laboratory performed inhibitor tests on blood specimens that were collected at baseline, annually, prior to any planned product switch or when clinically indicated. The central laboratory also performed genotyping of all enrolled patients. From January 2006 through June 2012, 1163 patients were enrolled and followed up for 3329 person-years. A total of 3048 inhibitor tests were performed and 23 new factor VIII inhibitors were identified, 61% of which were not clinically apparent. Infusion logs were submitted for 113,205 exposure days. Genotyping revealed 431 distinct mutations causing haemophilia, 151 of which had not previously been reported elsewhere in the world. This study provided critical information about the practical issues that must be addressed to successfully implement national inhibitor surveillance. Centralized testing with routine monitoring and confirmation of locally identified inhibitors will provide valid and representative data with which to evaluate inhibitor incidence and prevalence, monitor trends in occurrence rates and identify potential inhibitor outbreaks associated with products.

A qualitative analysis of best self-management practices: sickle cell disease

BACKGROUND

Sickle cell disease (SCD) is associated with serious comorbidities resulting in a shortened lifespan, and many clients suffer from frequent pain episodes. However, others successfully manage their disease in the outpatient setting without the need for frequent health care utilization. The purpose of this project was to describe specific strategies used by adult clients with sickle cell disease to achieve optimal physical health.

METHOD

A Best Self-management Practices workshop was held in conjunction with the Sickle Cell Disease Association of America meeting. A panel discussion was organized; adult clients were recruited for participation. The workshop was divided into 3 topics: complementary and alternative medicine, psychosocial issues, and work/education/training. Panel discussions were audiotaped, transcribed, and analyzed using the constant comparative method.

RESULTS

Seven adult patients with sickle cell disease and 1 social worker participated. The following themes emerged: self-awareness, emotional support, career selection and success factors, nutrition, advocacy, knowledge, physical, and complementary and alternative medicine. Self-awareness was the most reported strategy with emphasis on journaling and body awareness. Emotional support included spiritual support, friends, family, professional counseling, and spiritual support. A variety of suggestions were discussed related to the other themes. All participants used many strategies daily to maintain optimal health.

Sickle cell disease: current activities, public health implications, and future directions

Sickle cell disease (SCD) is a genetic blood disorder caused by abnormal hemoglobin that damages and deforms red blood cells (RBCs). The abnormal red cells break down, causing anemia, and obstruct blood vessels, leading to recurrent episodes of severe pain and multiorgan ischemic damage. SCD affects millions of people throughout the world and is particularly common among people whose ancestors come from sub-Saharan Africa. Sickle cell trait (SCT) is an inherited condition in which both normal hemoglobin and sickle hemoglobin are produced in the RBCs. SCT is not a type of sickle cell disease. People with SCT are generally healthy. In SCD, clinical severity varies, ranging from mild and sometimes asymptomatic states to severe symptoms requiring hospitalization. Symptomatic treatments exist, but there is no cure for SCD. Although there has been extensive clinical and basic science research in SCD, many public health issues, such as blood safety surveillance, compliance with immunizations, follow-up of newborns with positive screening tests, stroke prevention, pregnancy complications, pain prevention, quality of life, and thrombosis, in people with SCT remain unaddressed. Currently, efforts are under way to strengthen SCD-related activities within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). To date, several activities are being or have been conducted by centers within CDC, including quality assurance of newborn screening tests for SCD, morbidity and mortality studies, genetic studies, and studies focusing on the protective effects of SCT for malaria. This paper discusses the public health implications of SCD, summarizes SCD-related activities within CDC, and points to future directions that the agency can take to begin to address some of these issues.