Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37266959›Full record

ArticleJAMA health forum2023

Awareness of Racial and Ethnic Bias and Potential Solutions to Address Bias With Use of Health Care Algorithms.

Anjali Jain, Jasmin R Brooks, Cleothia C Alford, Christine S Chang, Nora M Mueller, Craig A Umscheid, Arlene S Bierman

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA health forum, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
16.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 70 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. A Comprehensive Approach to Responsible AI Development and Deployment.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2025
    Review
  11. Digital Psychiatry with Chatbot: Recent Advances and Limitations.Clinical psychopharmacology and neuroscience : the official scientific journal of the Korean College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2025
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Anjali JainEvidence-based Practice Center Division, Center for Evidence and Practice Improvement, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, Maryland.
Jasmin R BrooksDepartment of Psychology, University of Houston, Houston, Texas.
Cleothia C AlfordEvidence-based Practice Center Division, Center for Evidence and Practice Improvement, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, Maryland.
Christine S ChangEvidence-based Practice Center Division, Center for Evidence and Practice Improvement, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, Maryland.
Nora M MuellerEvidence-based Practice Center Division, Center for Evidence and Practice Improvement, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, Maryland.
Craig A UmscheidEvidence-based Practice Center Division, Center for Evidence and Practice Improvement, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, Maryland.
Arlene S BiermanOffice of the Director, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, Maryland.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality · USUniversity of Houston · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Algorithms are commonly incorporated into health care decision tools used by health systems and payers and thus affect quality of care, access, and health outcomes. Some algorithms include a patient's race or ethnicity among their inputs and can lead clinicians and decision-makers to make choices that vary by race and potentially affect inequities. Objective: To inform an evidence review on the use of race- and ethnicity-based algorithms in health care by gathering public and stakeholder perspectives about the repercussions of and efforts to address algorithm-related bias. Design, Setting, and Participants: Qualitative methods were used to analyze responses. Responses were initially open coded and then consolidated to create a codebook, with themes and subthemes identified and finalized by consensus. This qualitative study was conducted from May 4, 2021, through December 7, 2022. Forty-two organization representatives (eg, clinical professional societies, universities, government agencies, payers, and health technology organizations) and individuals responded to the request for information. Main Outcomes and Measures: Identification of algorithms with the potential for race- and ethnicity-based biases and qualitative themes. Results: Forty-two respondents identified 18 algorithms currently in use with the potential for bias, including, for example, the Simple Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimation risk prediction tool and the risk calculator for vaginal birth after cesarean section. The 7 qualitative themes, with 31 subthemes, included the following: (1) algorithms are in widespread use and have significant repercussions, (2) bias can result from algorithms whether or not they explicitly include race, (3) clinicians and patients are often unaware of the use of algorithms and potential for bias, (4) race is a social construct used as a proxy for clinical variables, (5) there is a lack of standardization in how race and social determinants of health are collected and defined, (6) bias can be introduced at all stages of algorithm development, and (7) algorithms should be discussed as part of shared decision-making between the patient and clinician. Conclusions and Relevance: This qualitative study found that participants perceived widespread and increasing use of algorithms in health care and lack of oversight, potentially exacerbating racial and ethnic inequities. Increasing awareness for clinicians and patients and standardized, transparent approaches for algorithm development and implementation may be needed to address racial and ethnic biases related to algorithms.

Indexed as

Cesarean SectionDelivery of Health CareBiasEthnicityFemaleHealth FacilitiesHumansPregnancy

Identifiers

PMID37266959
PMCPMC10238944
OpenAlexW4379094721

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.