Dataset Information

Advancing Intersectional Discrimination Measures for Health Disparities Research: Protocol for a Bilingual Mixed Methods Measurement Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Guided by intersectionality frameworks, researchers have documented health disparities at the intersection of multiple axes of social status and position, particularly race and ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation. To advance from identifying to intervening in such intersectional health disparities, studies that examine the underlying mechanisms are required. Although much research demonstrates the negative health impacts of perceived discrimination along single axes, quantitative approaches to assessing the role of discrimination in generating intersectional health disparities remain in their infancy. Members of our team recently introduced the Intersectional Discrimination Index (InDI) to address this gap. The InDI comprises three measures of enacted (day-to-day and major) and anticipated discrimination. These attribution-free measures ask about experiences of mistreatment because of who you are. These measures show promise for intersectional health disparities research but require further validation across intersectional groups and languages. In addition, the proposal to remove attributions is controversial, and no direct comparison has ever been conducted.

Objective

This study aims to cognitively and psychometrically evaluate the InDI in English and Spanish and determine whether attributions should be included.

Methods

The study will draw on a preliminary validation data set and three original sequentially collected sources of data: qualitative cognitive interviews in English and Spanish with a sample purposively recruited across intersecting social status and position (gender, sexual orientation, race and ethnicity, socioeconomic status, age, and nativity); a Spanish quantitative survey (n=500; 250/500, 50% sexual and gender minorities); and an English quantitative survey (n=3000), with quota sampling by race and ethnicity (Black, Latino/a/x, and White), sexual or gender minority status, and gender.

Results

The study was funded by the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities in May 2021, and data collection began in July 2021.

Conclusions

The key deliverables of the study will be bilingual measures of anticipated, day-to-day, and major discrimination validated for multiple health disparity populations using qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods.

International registered report identifier (irrid)

PRR1-10.2196/30987.

SUBMITTER: Scheim AI

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8438612 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTo describe the ethical issues and experiences of scientists conducting mixed methods health services research and to advance empirical and conceptual discussion on ethical integrity in mixed methods health research.MethodsThe study was conducted with 64 scholars, faculty and consultants from the NIH-funded Mixed Methods Research Training Program (MMRTP) for the Health Sciences. This was a cross-sectional study. Survey results were analyzed using descriptive statistics to characterize responses and open coding to summarize strategies about eight ethical mixed methods research issues. Respondents completed an online survey to elicit experiences related to eight ethical issues (informed consent, confidentiality, data management, burden, safety, equitable recruitment, communication, and dissemination) and strategies for addressing them.ResultsOnly about one-third of respondents thought their research ethics training helped them plan, conduct, or report mixed methods research. The most frequently occurring ethical issues were participant burden, dissemination and equitable recruitment (> 70% endorsement). Despite occurring frequently, < 50% of respondents rated each ethical issue as challenging. The most challenging ethical issues were related to managing participant burden, communication, and dissemination. Strategies reported to address ethical issues were largely not specific or unique to mixed methods with the exception of strategies to mitigate participant burden and, to a lesser degree, to facilitate equitable recruitment and promote dissemination of project results.ConclusionsMixed methods health researchers reported encountering ethical issues often yet varying levels of difficulty and effectiveness in the strategies used to mitigate ethical issues. This study highlights some of the unique challenges faced by mixed methods researchers to plan for and appropriately respond to arising ethical issues such as managing participant burden and confidentiality across data sources and utilizing effective communication and dissemination strategies particularly when working with a multidisciplinary research team. As one of the first empirical studies to examine mixed methods research ethics, our findings highlight the need for greater attention to ethics in health services mixed methods research and training.

Project description:IntroductionGendered racism against Asian American women has become an increasing public health threat in recent years. Although intersectional discrimination (i.e., co-occurring race- and gender-based discrimination) against Asian American women is not new, research on this topic is lacking. The present scoping review sought to explore how Asian American women report experiences of intersectional discrimination through a systematic examination of the current literature. We included studies that explicitly or implicitly discuss intersectional discrimination. We also aimed to identify indicators of psychological wellbeing and coping associated with these experiences.MethodsFollowing PRISMA Guidelines for Systematic Scoping Reviews, database searches were conducted for peer-reviewed articles. A total of 1,476 studies were title- and abstract-screened by two independent reviewers. Then, 148 articles were full-text screened for eligibility.ResultsA final sample of 23 studies was identified (15 qualitative and 8 quantitative). Only nine of the included studies explicitly used an intersectional framework. Results from qualitative studies revealed that Asian American women experience intersectional discrimination through fetishization, the ascription of passivity, invalidation through lack of representation and pervasive white beauty ideals, and workplace tokenization and scrutiny. Study findings suggested that Asian American women experience these forms of intersectional discrimination across multiple levels of influence (i.e., internalized, interpersonal, institutional, structural). Findings from both qualitative and quantitative studies also indicated how discrimination, whether explicitly or implicitly intersectional, contributes to adverse mental health outcomes such as body shame, disordered eating, depression, and suicidality. Studies also touched on common coping mechanisms employed by Asian American women when facing or anticipating discrimination, such as avoidance, shifting, proactive coping, and leaning on networks of support. There was a lack of studies using quantitative assessments of intersectional discrimination. Also, most studies did not include disaggregated data by ethnicity, age, sexual identity, religion, socioeconomic status, immigration status, or skin color, all of which are likely to shape their experiences.DiscussionOur scoping review highlights how the marginalization of Asian American women is an urgent threat to their mental wellbeing. These findings are discussed to inform future research, interventions, and policy changes that prevent racialized and gendered violence against Asian American women.

Project description:ObjectivesTo conceptualize new methods for integrating patient-centered measurement into team-based care.MethodsA standalone portal was introduced into a rural clinic to support conceptualization of new methods for integration of patient-centered measurement in team-based care. The portal housed mental health-related online resources, three patient-reported measures and a self-action plan. Six providers and four patients used the portal for four months. Our data collection techniques included clinic discussions, one-on-one interviews, workflow diagrams and data generated through the portal. Analysis was supported through coding interview transcripts, looking across multiple sources of research data and research team discussions.ResultsOur research team conceptualized five team-based patient-centered measurement methods through this study. Patient-centered measurement Team Mapping offfers a technique to provide greater clarity of care-team roles and responsibilities in data collected through patient-centered measurement. Longitudinal Care Alignment can guide the care-team on incorporating patient-centered measurement into ongoing provider-patient interactions. Digital Tool Exploration can be used to evaluate a team's readiness toward digital tool adoption, and the impact of these tools. Team-based quality improvement serves as a framework for engaging teams in patient-centered quality improvement. Shared learning is a method that promotes patientprovider interactions that validate patient's perspectives of their care.ConclusionThe portal illuminated new methods for the integration of patient-centered measurement in team-based care. The first three proposed patient-centered measurement methods provides ways to assess how a clinic can incorporate patient-centered measurement methods into team-based care. The latter two methods focus on the aim of patient-generated data in which patient's values and perspectives are represented and quality of patient-centered care can be evaluated. Further testing is needed to assess the utility of these patient-centered measurement methods across different clinical settings and domains.

Project description:New models of primary care include patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to promote patient-centered care. PROMs provide information on patient functional status and well-being, can be used to enhance care quality, and are proposed for use in assessing performance. Our objective was to identify a short list of candidate PROMs for use in primary care practice and to serve as a basis for performance measures (PMs). We used qualitative and quantitative methods to identify relevant patient-reported outcome (PRO) domains for use in performance measurement (PRO-PM) and their associated PROMs. We collected data from key informant groups: patients (n = 13; one-on-one and group interviews; concept saturation analysis), clinical thought leaders (n = 9; group discussions; thematic analysis), primary care practices representatives (n = 37; six focus groups; thematic analysis), and primary care payer representatives (n = 10; 12-question survey; frequencies of responses). We merged the key informant group information with findings from environmental literature scans. We conducted a targeted evidence review of measurement properties for candidate PROMs. We used a scoping review and key informant groups to identify PROM evaluation criteria, which were linked to the National Quality Forum measure evaluation criteria. We developed a de novo schema to score candidate PROMs against our criteria. We identified four PRO domains and 10 candidate PROMs: 3 for depressive symptoms, 2 for physical function, 3 for self-efficacy, 2 for ability to participate. Five PROMs met ≥ 70% of the evidence criteria for three PRO domains: PHQ-9 or PROMIS Depression (depression), PF-10 or PROMIS-PF (physical functioning), and PROMIS Self-Efficacy for Managing Treatments and Medications (self-efficacy). The PROMIS Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities met 68% of our criteria and might be considered for inclusion. Existing evidence and key informant data identified 5 candidate PROMs to use in primary care. These instruments can be used to develop PRO-PMs.