Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11949921›Full record

ArticleHealth services research2002

Methodologic implications of allocating multiple-race data to single-race categories.

Jennifer D Parker, Diane M Makuc

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Health services research, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jennifer D ParkerDivision of Health Utilization and Analysis, National Center for Health Statistics, Hyattsville, MD 20782, USA.
Diane M Makuc
National Center for Health Statistics · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo illustrate methods for comparing race data collected under the 1977 Federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) directive, known as OMB-15, with race data collected under the revised 1997 OMB standard. DATA SOURCES/STUDY

settingSecondary data from the 1993-95 National Health Interview Surveys. Multiple-race responses, available on in-house files, were analyzed. STUDY

designRace-specific estimates of employer-sponsored health insurance were calculated using proposed allocation methods from the OMB. Estimates were calculated overall and for three population subgroups: children, those in households below poverty, and Hispanics. PRINCIPAL

findingsAlthough race distributions varied between the different methods, estimates of employer-sponsored health insurance were similar. Health insurance estimates for the American Indian/Alaska Native group varied the most.

conclusionsEmployer-sponsored health insurance estimates for American Indian/Alaska Natives from data collected under the 1977 OMB directive will not be comparable with estimates from data collected under the 1997 standard. The selection of a method to distribute to the race categories used prior to the 1997 revision will likely have little impact on estimates of employer-sponsored health insurance for other groups. Additional research is needed to determine the effects of these methods for other health service measures.

Indexed as

ChildData CollectionData Interpretation, StatisticalEthnicityFamily CharacteristicsHealth Benefit Plans, EmployeeHealth Services ResearchHealth StatusHealth Status IndicatorsHumansPovertyRacial GroupsUnited States

Identifiers

PMID11949921
PMCPMC1430348
OpenAlexW316706842

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.