ArticleSociology of health & illness2018
Racialised prescribing: enacting race/ethnicity in clinical practice guidelines and in accounts of clinical practice.
Article in Sociology of health & illness, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Inequality, Trust and Fear: Migrant Healthcare During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Beyond.Sociology of health & illness · 2025Article
- What would it take to meaningfully attend to ethnicity and race in health research? Learning from a trial intervention development study.Sociology of health & illness · 2022Article
- Sociological contributions to race and health: Diversifying the ontological and methodological agenda.Sociology of health & illness · 2021Review
- Body mass index is just a number: Conflating riskiness and unhealthiness in discourse on body size.Sociology of health & illness · 2021Review
- Differences in Hypertension Medication Prescribing for Black Americans and Their Association with Hypertension Outcomes.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFMObservational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This article examines the articulation and enactment of racialised classifications in clinical practice guidelines and in accounts of clinical practice. It contributes to debates about racialisation in medicine and its consequences. The research centred on the case study of prescribing guidelines for hypertension in England and Wales, drawing on documentary sources and semi-structured expert interviews. We found that conceptual and socio-political uncertainties existed about how to interpret the designation 'Black patients' and about the practices for identifying patients' race/ethnicity. To 'close' uncertainties, and thus produce the guidelines and treat patients, respondents drew authority from disparate elements of the 'topologies of race'. This has implications for understanding processes of racialisation and for the future use of racialised clinical practice guidelines. We argue that clinical practice guidelines play a 'nodal' role in racialisation by forming an authoritative material connection that creates a path for translating racialised research into racialised healthcare practice, and that they carry with them implicit conceptual and socio-political uncertainties that are liable to create inconsistencies in healthcare practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.