首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Health Disparities Research and Practice >Not Always Black and White: Racial Bias for Birth Disparities from Excluding Hispanic Identification
【24h】

Not Always Black and White: Racial Bias for Birth Disparities from Excluding Hispanic Identification

机译:并非总是黑白:排除西班牙裔身份的出生差异种族偏见

获取原文
       

摘要

Despite gains in prenatal care (PNC) usage and birth outcomes for minority women during the past few decades, observed disparities between non-Hispanic Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics persist. Using the National Center for Health Statistics’ (NCHS) natality files from 1981 through 1998, Alexander, Kogan, & Nabukera (2002) examined live births of U.S. residents by trimester in which PNC was initiated and the appropriateness of that care based on the Adequacy of Prenatal Care Utilization Index (APNCU) (Kotelchuck, 1994). They found racial disparities between White and Black women in both the trimester of PNC initiation and the number of PNC visits made. Alexander et al.(2002) noted reductions in racial disparities in PNC; specifically, Blacks were steadily increasing in the number of prenatal visits and in first trimester initiation of PNC. However, a weakness of their study was the exclusivity of racial categories; only White and Black racial groups were analyzed based on the mother’s self reported race. Other racial groups were not included because Hispanic data were not identifiable for some states during part of the study period, and other racial groups lacked sufficient numbers to establish trending in the categories of interest (Alexander et al., 2002). Thus Hispanics identified their race as White and their ethnicity as Hispanic. Alexander et al. counted both non-Hispanic Whites and Hispanics as ‘Whites’ regardless of ethnicity or the availability of ethnicity in their analysis. This created a potential source of bias, as one could speculate that the reported narrowing of racial disparities in the number of PNC visits and earlier initiation of care between Whites and Blacks could be the result of increasing births to Hispanic women included in the ‘White’ birth group. The reported narrowing of disparities could simply be the result of failing to separate Hispanic women in the analysis, a potentially significant portion of the ‘White’ group given their high fertility rates and increased percentage of the total U.S. population. While the expansion of Medicaid-sponsored funding for pregnant women likely contributed to some of the reported increases in earlier PNC initiation and the number of prenatal visits in the late 1980s and early 1990s (Hessol, Vittingoff, & Fuentes-Afflick, 2004; Hueston, Geesey, & Diaz, 2008), it is not clear if this expansion benefited one racial group over another, particularly when Hispanic ethnicity is taken into account. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate differentials in birth outcomes for singletons by race
机译:尽管在过去的几十年中,少数民族妇女的产前保健(PNC)使用和分娩结局有所增加,但观察到的非西班牙裔白人,黑人和西班牙裔之间仍然存在差异。 Alexander,Kogan和Nabukera(2002)使用1981年至1998年美国国家卫生统计中心(National Center for Health Statistics)的出生档案,检查了在开始妊娠PNC的三个月中美国居民的活产,以及根据适当性进行这种护理的适当性产前保健利用指数(APNCU)(Kotelchuck,1994)。他们发现在PNC启动的三个月中,白人妇女和黑人妇女之间的种族差异和PNC访问的次数均如此。 Alexander等人(2002年)指出,PNC的种族差异有所减少。特别是,黑人的产前检查次数和PNC的孕早期开始稳定增长。但是,他们研究的一个弱点是种族类别的排他性。根据母亲的自我报告的种族,仅分析了白人和黑人种族。不包括其他种族群体,因为在研究期间的某些阶段无法识别某些州的西班牙裔数据,而其他种族群体缺乏足够的数量来确定感兴趣类别中的趋势(Alexander等,2002)。因此,西班牙裔人将他们的种族确定为白人,将族裔确定为西班牙裔。亚历山大等。将非西班牙裔白人和西班牙裔美国人都视为“白人”,无论其种族或种族的可用性如何。这造成了一种潜在的偏见根源,因为人们可以推测,据报道,PNC探视的种族差距缩小,白人和黑人之间较早开始照料,这可能是“白人”中西班牙裔妇女出生人数增加的结果。出生组。据报道,差距缩小仅是由于未能将西班牙裔女性分开进行分析所致;鉴于生育率高和美国总人口比例增加,“白人”群体可能是重要的一部分。虽然增加医疗补助金为孕妇提供的资金可能促成了早先报道的PNC启动和1980年代末和1990年代初的产前就诊次数增加的报道(Hessol,Vittingoff和Fuentes-Afflick,2004年; Hueston, Geesey和Diaz,2008年),尚不清楚这种扩张是否使一个种族群体比另一个种族受益,特别是考虑到西班牙裔种族时。因此,本研究的目的是评估不同种族的单身人士的出生结局差异。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号