首页> 外文期刊>Annals of epidemiology >How do we assess a racial disparity in health? Distribution, interaction, and interpretation in epidemiological studies
【24h】

How do we assess a racial disparity in health? Distribution, interaction, and interpretation in epidemiological studies

机译:我们如何评估健康的种族差异? 流行病学研究中的分布,互动和解释

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Identifying the exposures or interventions that exacerbate or ameliorate racial health disparities is one of the fundamental goals of social epidemiology. Introducing an interaction term between race and an exposure into a statistical model is commonly used in the epidemiologic literature to assess racial health disparities and the potential viability of a targeted health intervention. However, researchers may attribute too much authority to the interaction term and inadvertently ignore other salient information regarding the health disparity. In this article, we highlight empirical examples from the literature demonstrating limitations of overreliance on interaction terms in health disparities research; we further suggest approaches for moving beyond interaction terms when assessing these disparities. We promote a comprehensive framework of three guiding questions for disparity investigation, suggesting examination of the group-specific differences in (1) outcome prevalence, (2) exposure prevalence, and (3) effect size. Our framework allows for better assessment of meaningful differences in population health and the resulting implications for interventions, demonstrating that interaction terms alone do not provide sufficient means for determining how disparities arise. The widespread adoption of this more comprehensive approach has the potential to dramatically enhance understanding of the patterning of health and disease and the drivers of health disparities. (C) 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.
机译:确定加剧或改善种族健康差异的暴露或干预是社会流行病学的基本目标之一。在流行病学文献中常用于流行病学文献中,在统计模型之间引入互动项,以评估种族健康差异以及目标健康干预的潜在可行性。然而,研究人员可能会归因于互动项的太多权威,无意中忽视了关于健康差异的其他突出信息。在本文中,我们突出了文献中的实证例子,证明了对卫生差异研究中的相互作用术语的局限性的局限性;我们进一步建议在评估这些差异时超越相互作用术语的方法。我们促进了三个指导问题的全面框架,以实现差异调查,建议审查(1)结果患病率,(2)暴露率和(3)效应规模的群体特异性差异。我们的框架允许更好地评估人口健康的有意义差异,并对干预措施产生影响,证明单独的互动条款不提供足够的方法来确定差距。这种更全面的方法的广泛采用有可能大大提高对健康和疾病的图案和卫生障碍的司机的理解。 (c)2018作者。 elsevier公司发布

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