ArticlePopulation health metrics2025
Improving racial data equity among minority groups in South Carolina using COVID-19 as an example: application of principal components analysis.
Article in Population health metrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundData inequity occurs when racial and ethnic groups are aggregated during data collection or reporting despite their differences. To demonstrate racial data equity importance, we re-analyzed South Carolina's (SC) census data and COVID-19 case-rate and death-rate distributions according to age, sex, and new combined single and multiracial categories.
methodsThe new combined single and multiracial categories included individuals who identified as a single race alone (such as American Indian or Alaska Native, AI-AN) with those who identified as more than one race (such as AI-AN and White) regardless of Hispanic or Latino heritage. We compared those distributions to the single race categories using the American Community Survey 2018-2022 and COVID-19 case and death surveillance data, 2020-2023, for SC. We used principal components analysis to test for differences in age-sex distributions between single race alone and new combined single and multiracial categories for each race.
resultsCompared to the combined single and multiracial categories, single race alone categories lose information, underestimate the population of younger-aged people of AI-AN, Asian, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (NH-OPI) races, and result in COVID-19 case and death rates with extreme values across age groups, particularly for AI-AN and NH-OPI populations. Among AI-AN, certain age groups had different COVID-19 case rate patterns between females and males, but this was explained by race categorization (single race alone vs. combined single and multiracial, P < 0.0001).
conclusionsCombined single and multiracial categories achieve data equity by avoiding data suppression or aggregation of small diverse populations. Differences in COVID-19 case rates across some age groups between females and males may be biased depending on how race is defined. Younger generations are increasingly multiracial and will be underrepresented if only single race categories are used in public health reporting practices.
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.