ArticleJournal of migration and health2026
Intersectional relationships between age, sex, ethnicity, nationality and experience of racism in the UK using different ethnicity categorisations: A comparative study using survey data.
Article in Journal of migration and health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association of Adverse Childhood Experiences With Health-Related Quality of Life and Quality-Adjusted Life-Years Among Adolescents in the United Kingdom: Findings From Two General Population Cohorts.Alpha psychiatry · 2026Article
- Intersectional relationships between age, sex, ethnicity, nationality and experience of racism in the UK using different ethnicity categorisations: A comparative study using survey data.Journal of migration and health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Traditionally, research has relied on broad ethnic categories such as "Asian," "Black," "White," "Mixed," and "Other." These categories often mask significant variations in experiences and outcomes among ethnic subgroups. The Intersectional Multilevel Analysis of Individual Heterogeneity and Discriminatory Accuracy (I-MAIHDA) approach has become an increasingly recognised quantitative method to study intersectional health inequities. There is a need for better understanding of how the granularity with which ethnicity is measured impacts the interpretation of I-MAIHDA. We used the Evidence from Equality National Survey: A Survey of Ethnic Minorities During the COVID-19 Pandemic, 2021 (EVENS) study, a cross-sectional survey conducted between February and November 2021, including 14,221 individuals with 21 ethnic categories. We constructed intersectional social strata using sex, age, ethnicity and UK nationality. We compared models using 21-category and 5-category ethnicity on describing predicted lifetime experience of racism. Overall, 65% of participants reported experiencing racism in their lifetime. The 5-category model has a higher interaction effect compared to 21-caterogy model due to artefacts from coarse ethnic categorisation. While the interaction effects in 21-category model are smaller, they are potentially more meaningful. The 21-cateogory models revealed significant variations within coarse ethnic groups, showing that individuals from Black Caribbean, African and mixed backgrounds had a higher likelihood of experiencing racism, regardless of UK nationality. The 5-category model failed to attribute the protective effect of not being UK nationality to lower predicted experience of racism in White other backgrounds. Our study demonstrates that using more granular ethnicity categories can lead to more accurate and specific insights in characterising inequities when applying quantitative intersectional approaches, over and above coarse ethnicity groupings used in I-MAIHDA or traditional non-interactive models.
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.