Search

Despite repeated calls by scholars to critically engage with the concepts of race and ethnicity in US epidemiologic research, the incorporation of these social constructs in scholarship may be suboptimal. This study characterizes the conceptualization, operationalization, and utilization of race and ethnicity in US research published in leading journals whose publications shape discourse and norms around race, ethnicity, and health within the field of epidemiology. We systematically reviewed randomly selected articles from prominent epidemiology journals across 5 periods: 1995–1999, 2000–2004, 2005–2009, 2010–2014, and 2015–2018. All original human-subjects research conducted in the United States was eligible for review. Information on definitions, measurement, coding, and use in analysis was extracted. We reviewed 1,050 articles, including 414 (39%) in our analyses. Four studies explicitly defined race and/or ethnicity. Authors rarely made clear delineations between race and ethnicity, often adopting an ethnoracial construct. In the majority of studies across time periods, authors did not state how race and/or ethnicity was measured. Top coding schemes included "Black, White" (race), "Hispanic, non-Hispanic" (ethnicity), and "Black, White, Hispanic" (ethnoracial). Most often, race and ethnicity were deemed "not of interest" in analyses (e.g. control variables). Broadly, disciplinary practices have remained largely the same between 1995 and 2018 and are in need of improvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Few studies have assessed the impact of race on short-term patient outcomes in the brain metastasis population. The goal of this study is to evaluate the association of race with inpatient clinical presentation, treatment, in-hospital complications, and in-hospital mortality rates for patients with brain metastases (BM). Method Using data collected from the National Inpatient Sample between 2004 and 2014, we retrospectively identified adult patients with a primary diagnosis of BM. Outcomes included nonroutine discharge, prolonged length of stay (pLOS), in-hospital complications, and mortality. Results Minority (Black, Hispanic/other) patients were less likely to receive surgical intervention compared to White patients (odds ratio [OR] 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66–0.74, p  < 0.001; OR 0.88; 95% CI 0.84–0.93, p  < 0.001). Black patients were more likely to develop an in-hospital complication than White patients (OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.28–1.41, p  < 0.001). Additionally, minority patients were more likely to experience pLOS than White patients (OR 1.48; 95% CI 1.41–1.57, p  < 0.001; OR 1.34; 95% CI 1.27–1.42, p  < 0.001). Black patients were more likely to experience a nonroutine discharge (OR 1.25; 95% CI 1.19–1.31, p  < 0.001) and higher in-hospital mortality than White (OR 1.13; 95% CI 1.03–1.23, p  = 0.008). Conclusion Our analysis demonstrated that race is associated with disparate short-term outcomes in patients with BM. More efforts are needed to address these disparities, provide equitable care, and allow for similar outcomes regardless of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design: Retrospective review of prospective, multicenter and international cohort study., Objective: To describe the effect of gender on HRQoL, clinical outcomes and survival for patients with spinal metastases treated with either surgery and/or radiation., Summary of Background Data: Gender differences in health-related outcomes are demonstrated in numerous studies, with women experiencing worse outcomes and receiving lower standards of care than men, however, the influence that gender has on low health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and clinical outcomes after spine surgery remains unclear., Methods: Patient demographic data, overall survival, treatment details, perioperative complications, and HRQoL measures including EQ-5D, pain NRS, the short form 36 version 2 (SF-36v2) and the Spine Oncology Study Group Outcomes Questionnaire (SOSGOQ2.0) were reviewed. Patients were stratified by sex, and a separate sensitivity analysis that excluded gender-specific cancers (i.e., breast, prostate, etc.) was performed., Results: The study cohort included 207 female and 183 male patients, with age, smoking status, and site of primary cancer being significantly different between the two cohorts (P<0.001). Both males and females experienced significantly improved SOSGOQ2.0, EQ-5D, and pain NRS scores at all study time points from baseline (P<0.001). Upon sensitivity analysis, (gender-specific cancers removed from analysis), the significant improvement in SOSGOQ physical, mental, and social subdomains and on SF-36 domains disappeared for females. Males experienced higher rates of postoperative complications. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis of both the overall and sensitivity analysis cohorts showed females lived longer than males after treatment (P=0.001 and 0.043, respectively)., Conclusion: Both males and females experienced significantly improved HRQoL scores after treatment, but females demonstrated longer survival and a lower complication rate. This study suggests that gender may be a prognostic factor in survival and clinical outcomes for patients undergoing treatment for spine metastases and should be taken into consideration when counseling patients accordingly., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)