In-depth analyses of racism and greater recruitment of Black practitioners needed to address inequities in mental health treatment for Black Americans
A series of literature reviews published online December 13 in The Lancet Psychiatry journal highlight the large body of evidence on the role played by racism in mental health disparities experienced by Black people living in the United States.
Along with an essay from Black Americans that describes their lived experiences, the three new papers in the series include analysis of more than 50 years of literature on the effects of racism. The authors conclude that improving the mental well-being of Black Americans requires a community-centered and culturally informed approach that is inclusive, accessible and promotes empowerment and resilience in Black communities. The papers also highlight the urgent need for Black sociologists, anthropologists, scientists, physicians, clinicians, and citizens to be setting the priorities in mental health care based on lived experiences.
Led by a physician scientist at NYU Grossman School of Medicine, the authors call for a comprehensive analysis of the conditions and systems through which racism produces mental health issues, while highlighting the potential of community-driven action to reduce inequity.
“Our reviews highlight the impact of racism on mental health disparities, and emphasize the need to understand the roots of racial inequity to achieve racial justice in health care,” said series lead author Ayana Jordan, MD, PhD, the Barbara Wilson Associate Professor in the Department of Psychiatry, and co-lead for the community engagement pillar of the Institute for Excellence in Health Equity at NYU Langone Health.
Racism Shapes Black Mental Health
Due to centuries of racism, Black Americans have much greater exposure to risk factors for mental illness, says Dr. Jordan, including lower quality education, impoverished neighborhoods, high rates of homelessness, and exposure to violence with high rates of police brutality. Additionally, the mental health care system as it stands invalidates the experience of Black Americans, dismissing their cultural backgrounds.
Due to inequitable systems that are not culturally informed, Black people are less likely to seek mental health care when compared to White Americans. Further, Black people have historically been excluded from medical research, and Black scientists make up less than 1 % of researchers receiving independent research funding from the US National Institutes of Health.
Centuries of dehumanization have led to underestimation, misdiagnosis, and inadequate treatment of mental illness among Black Americans, says Jordan, who is also an associate professor in the NYU Langone Department of Population Health. The authors argue that the definitions and framing of mental health, mental illness, and the prescriptions for diagnosing, treating, and maintaining wellness have all been grounded in whiteness and myths of white supremacy. They point out that explanations for the differences in rates of mental illness and substance use disorders between racial and ethnic groups have often been incorrectly seen as evidence of biological or cultural distinctions, and are missing explanations of systemic, avoidable, and unjust policies.
To address these challenges, Jordan and colleagues are calling for a comprehensive analysis of the conditions and systems that produce mental illness and compromise mental health. They say this work must go beyond traditional views of individualized mental illness classifications to focus on collective efforts to combat racism and establish equitable systems that promote Black mental health.
Further, the new articles highlight the value of community-based participatory research (CBPR) conducted by Black scientists, Black leaders, and community members to improve the mental well-being of Black Americans. CBPR involves active participation and input from community members throughout the research process, giving communities a voice as they work with researchers toward long-lasting and culturally appropriate solutions.
In addition, the work looks at the effect of racism on epidemiology, the scientific discipline that estimates the burden of mental illness in populations. Effective sampling and minimizing bias are essential, particularly when the estimates are being used to determine policy. Thus, the methods of collecting, using, and analyzing epidemiological data are critical to the ways in which the intersection of race and mental illness is understood.
The researchers point out that explanations for the differences in rates of mental illness and substance use disorders between racial and ethnic groups are missing explanations of the systemic unjust policies underlying the inequities. For example, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), which has long been the classification system to understand mental illness, does not fully capture the experience of being racialized as Black, Jordan notes. Instead of understanding the effects of racism, the DSM-5 locates the problems of mental illness in the bodies and behaviors of individuals and categorizes differences by race—perpetuating systemic biases.
The series authors are calling for a large-scale study that identifies publicly available datasets on political districting, economic factors, environmental exposures to racism, and individual-level data related to emotional wellbeing, standardizes them for analysis, and analyzes the data for impact on emotional wellbeing. This could serve as the basis for a risk index that quantifies different exposures to racism and their potential impact on emotional wellbeing.
This integrated analysis can inform policies by capturing the dramatic impact of inequities on Black mental health in terms of civilian deaths from police, the percentage of those where substance use and mental illness were involved in deaths, the lack of access to treatment, the likelihood of incarceration, and the way Black people are portrayed in the media.
Articles for this review were identified through searches of PubMed and Google Scholar for work published from January, 1969 to October, 2023, by use of the terms “racism”, “racial inequalities”, “mental health”, “Black people”, “minority”, and “public policy”.
Along with Dr. Jordan, authors of review series were Mindy Fullilove, MD, of The New School; Ebony Dix, MD, of Yale University School of Medicine; Sidney Hankerson, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai; Jonathan Lassiter, PhD, of Cooper Medical School at Rowan University, Alfiee Breland-Noble, PhD, of the African American Knowledge Optimized for Mindfully-Health Adolescents (AAKOMA) Project, Frederick Streets, DSW, of Yale Divinity School; and Chyrell Bellamy, PhD, Richard Youins, and Kimberly Guy of the Program for Recovery and Community Health at Yale University School of Medicine.
The series was funded by NYU Grossman School of Medicine Department of Psychiatry, the Yale Department of Psychiatry, and the Yale School of Medicine, as well as by grant 5H79TI081358-04 from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, grant 5R01AA028778-04 from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), and grant 1R01DA057651-01 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). NIAAA and NIDA are part of the National Institutes of Health.
JOURNAL
The Lancet Psychiatry
METHOD OF RESEARCH
Literature review
SUBJECT OF RESEARCH
People
ARTICLE TITLE
Lancet Psychiatry Series on Black mental health in the USA: Nothing for us without us
ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE
13-Dec-2023
Racial equity in living donor kidney transplant centers
JAMA Network Open
Peer-Reviewed PublicationAbout The Study: The results of this study of data on 57,000 adults who received living donor kidney transplants indicate that additional work is necessary to identify transplant program and center-level strategies to improve racial equity in access to living donor kidney transplant.
Authors: Lisa M. McElroy, M.D., M.S., of the Duke University School of Medicine in Durham, North Carolina, is the corresponding author.
To access the embargoed study: Visit our For The Media website at this link https://media.jamanetwork.com/
(doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.47826)
Editor’s Note: Please see the article for additional information, including other authors, author contributions and affiliations, conflict of interest and financial disclosures, and funding and support.
# # #
Embed this link to provide your readers free access to the full-text article
About JAMA Network Open: JAMA Network Open is an online-only open access general medical journal from the JAMA Network. On weekdays, the journal publishes peer-reviewed clinical research and commentary in more than 40 medical and health subject areas. Every article is free online from the day of publication.
JOURNAL
JAMA Network Open
Guiding principles to address bias in healthcare algorithms
A paper published today in JAMA Network Open addresses bias in healthcare algorithms and provides the healthcare community with guiding principles to avoid repeating errors that have tainted the use of algorithms in other sectors.
This work, conducted by a technical expert panel co-chaired by Marshall Chin, MD, MPH, the Richard Parrillo Family Distinguished Service Professor of Healthcare Ethics at the University of Chicago, supports the Biden Administration Executive Order 14091, Further Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through The Federal Government, issued on February 16, 2023. President Biden calls for Federal agencies to consider opportunities to prevent and remedy discrimination, including by protecting the public from algorithmic discrimination.
The technical expert panel was supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and the National Institute for Minority Health and Health Disparities at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in partnership with the HHS Office of Minority Health and the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology.
“Healthcare algorithms, including those developed by artificial intelligence, have potential for great benefit and great harm. We know that biased algorithms have harmed minoritized communities in other fields such as housing, banking, education, and criminal justice,” Chin said.
The use of algorithms is expanding in many realms of healthcare, from diagnostics and treatments to payer systems and business processes. Every sector of the healthcare system is using these technologies to try to improve patient outcomes and reduce costs.
The panel developed a conceptual framework to apply the following guiding principles across an algorithm’s life cycle to address the problems of structural racism and discrimination, centering on healthcare equity for patients and communities as the overreaching goal:
- Promote health and healthcare equity during all healthcare algorithm life cycle phases.
- Ensure healthcare algorithms and their use are transparent and explainable.
- Authentically engage patients and communities during all healthcare algorithm life cycle phases and earn trustworthiness.
- Explicitly identify healthcare algorithmic fairness issues and tradeoffs.
- Establish accountability for equity and fairness in outcomes from healthcare algorithms.
The technical expert panel reviewed evidence, heard from stakeholders, and received community feedback. Although algorithms are widely used and can offer value in diagnostics and treatments, not all individuals benefit equally from such algorithms, creating inequities. This is due primarily to biases that result in undue harm to disadvantaged populations, which perpetuates healthcare disparities and may violate civil rights protections. To rectify these issues, the healthcare community and the public must understand how using algorithms may lead to unintended biased outcomes, how to identify biases before implementation, and what to do with biases discovered after implementation.
“Algorithmic bias is neither inevitable nor merely a mechanical or technical issue. Conscious decisions by algorithm developers, algorithm users, the healthcare industry, and regulators can mitigate and prevent bias and proactively advance health equity,” Chin said.
The paper, Guiding Principles to Address the Impact of Algorithm Bias on Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health and Health Care, may be found in JAMA Network Open. The journal also links to an accompanying podcast interview of panel co-chairs Marshall Chin, MD, MPH, and Lucila Ohno-Machado, MD, PhD, MBA.
JOURNAL
JAMA Network Open
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment