Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24298894›Full record

ArticleHealth services research2014

"Which box should I check?": examining standard check box approaches to measuring race and ethnicity.

Abbey Eisenhower, Karen Suyemoto, Fernanda Lucchese, Katia Canenguez

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health services research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Incorporating Social Determinants of Health in Infectious Disease Models: A Systematic Review of Guidelines.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Identifying visible minorities or racialized persons on surveys: can we just ask?Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique · 2020
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

Abbey EisenhowerDepartment of Psychology, University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, MA.
Karen Suyemoto
Fernanda Lucchese
Katia Canenguez

Funding

TRAINING COREP20MD002290 · NIMHD · UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS BOSTON · PI MOORE, CELIA L. · 2007 to 2011
$6.9M
NIMHD NIH HHS P20 MD002290NIMHD NIH HHS P20 MD002290-05
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study examined methodological concerns with standard approaches to measuring race and ethnicity using the federally defined race and ethnicity categories, as utilized in National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded research. DATA SOURCES/STUDY

settingSurveys were administered to 219 economically disadvantaged, racially and ethnically diverse participants at Boston Women Infants and Children (WIC) clinics during 2010. STUDY

designWe examined missingness and misclassification in responses to the closed-ended NIH measure of race and ethnicity compared with open-ended measures of self-identified race and ethnicity. PRINCIPAL

findingsRates of missingness were 26 and 43 percent for NIH race and ethnicity items, respectively, compared with 11 and 18 percent for open-ended responses. NIH race responses matched racial self-identification in only 44 percent of cases. Missingness and misclassification were disproportionately higher for self-identified Latina(o)s, African-Americans, and Cape Verdeans. Race, but not ethnicity, was more often missing for immigrant versus mainland U.S.-born respondents. Results also indicated that ethnicity for Hispanic/Latina(o)s is more complex than captured in this measure.

conclusionsThe NIH's current race and ethnicity measure demonstrated poor differentiation of race and ethnicity, restricted response options, and lack of an inclusive ethnicity question. Separating race and ethnicity and providing respondents with adequate flexibility to identify themselves both racially and ethnically may improve valid operationalization.

Indexed as

EthnicityRacial GroupsSelf ReportAdultFemaleHumansReproducibility of Resultshealth disparities researchMeasurement of race and ethnicityNational Institutes of Health (NIH) race and ethnicity reportingracial and ethnic self-identification

Identifiers

PMID24298894
PMCPMC4231584

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.