Equitable Research PRAXIS: A Framework for Health Informatics Methods.

Tiffany C Veinot, Phillipa J Clarke, Daniel M Romero, Lorraine R Buis, Tawanna R Dillahunt, Vinod V G Vydiswaran, Ashley Beals, Lindsay Brown, Olivia Richards, Alicia Williamson, Marcy G Antonio
{"title":"Equitable Research PRAXIS: A Framework for Health Informatics Methods.","authors":"Tiffany C Veinot,&nbsp;Phillipa J Clarke,&nbsp;Daniel M Romero,&nbsp;Lorraine R Buis,&nbsp;Tawanna R Dillahunt,&nbsp;Vinod V G Vydiswaran,&nbsp;Ashley Beals,&nbsp;Lindsay Brown,&nbsp;Olivia Richards,&nbsp;Alicia Williamson,&nbsp;Marcy G Antonio","doi":"10.1055/s-0042-1742542","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>There is growing attention to health equity in health informatics research. However, the literature lacks a comprehensive framework outlining critical considerations for health informatics research with marginalized groups.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Literature review and experiences from nine equity-focused health informatics conducted in the United States and Canada. Studies focus on disparities related to age, disability or chronic illness, gender/sex, place of residence (rural/urban), race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found four key equity-related methodological considerations. To assist informaticists in addressing equity, we contribute a novel framework to synthesize these four considerations: PRAXIS (Participation and Representation, Appropriate methods and interventions, conteXtualization and structural competence, Investigation of Systematic differences). Participation and representation refers to the necessity for meaningful participation of marginalized groups in research, to elevate the voices of marginalized people, and to represent marginalized people as they are comfortable (e.g., asset-based versus deficit-based). Appropriate methods and interventions mean targeting methods, instruments, and interventions to reach and engage marginalized people. Contextualization and structural competence mean avoiding individualization of systematic disparities and targeting social conditions that (re-)produce inequities. Investigation of systematic differences highlights that experiences of people marginalized according to specific traits differ from those not so marginalized, and thus encourages studying the specificity of these differences and investigating and preventing intervention-generated inequality. We outline guidance for operationalizing these considerations at four research stages.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This framework can assist informaticists in systematically addressing these considerations in their research in four research stages: project initiation; sampling and recruitment; data collection; and data analysis. We encourage others to use these insights from multiple studies to advance health equity in informatics.</p>","PeriodicalId":40027,"journal":{"name":"Yearbook of medical informatics","volume":"31 1","pages":"307-316"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/dd/69/10-1055-s-0042-1742542.PMC9719773.pdf","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Yearbook of medical informatics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1742542","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Objectives: There is growing attention to health equity in health informatics research. However, the literature lacks a comprehensive framework outlining critical considerations for health informatics research with marginalized groups.

Methods: Literature review and experiences from nine equity-focused health informatics conducted in the United States and Canada. Studies focus on disparities related to age, disability or chronic illness, gender/sex, place of residence (rural/urban), race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status.

Results: We found four key equity-related methodological considerations. To assist informaticists in addressing equity, we contribute a novel framework to synthesize these four considerations: PRAXIS (Participation and Representation, Appropriate methods and interventions, conteXtualization and structural competence, Investigation of Systematic differences). Participation and representation refers to the necessity for meaningful participation of marginalized groups in research, to elevate the voices of marginalized people, and to represent marginalized people as they are comfortable (e.g., asset-based versus deficit-based). Appropriate methods and interventions mean targeting methods, instruments, and interventions to reach and engage marginalized people. Contextualization and structural competence mean avoiding individualization of systematic disparities and targeting social conditions that (re-)produce inequities. Investigation of systematic differences highlights that experiences of people marginalized according to specific traits differ from those not so marginalized, and thus encourages studying the specificity of these differences and investigating and preventing intervention-generated inequality. We outline guidance for operationalizing these considerations at four research stages.

Conclusions: This framework can assist informaticists in systematically addressing these considerations in their research in four research stages: project initiation; sampling and recruitment; data collection; and data analysis. We encourage others to use these insights from multiple studies to advance health equity in informatics.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
公平研究实践:卫生信息学方法框架。
目的:卫生信息学研究日益关注卫生公平问题。然而,文献缺乏一个全面的框架概述卫生信息学研究与边缘群体的关键考虑因素。方法:在美国和加拿大进行的9项以公平为重点的健康信息学研究的文献综述和经验。研究的重点是与年龄、残疾或慢性疾病、性别/性别、居住地(农村/城市)、种族/民族、性取向和社会经济地位相关的差异。结果:我们发现了四个与股票相关的关键方法考虑因素。为了帮助信息学家解决公平问题,我们提出了一个新的框架来综合这四个考虑因素:PRAXIS(参与和代表,适当的方法和干预,情境化和结构能力,系统差异的调查)。参与和代表是指边缘化群体有必要有意义地参与研究,提高边缘化人群的声音,并代表边缘化人群的舒适(例如,基于资产还是基于赤字)。适当的方法和干预措施意味着有针对性的方法、手段和干预措施,以接触边缘化人群并使其参与进来。情境化和结构性能力意味着避免系统差异的个体化,并针对(重新)产生不平等的社会条件。对系统性差异的调查强调,由于特定特征而被边缘化的人的经历与那些没有被边缘化的人不同,因此鼓励研究这些差异的特殊性,调查和预防干预产生的不平等。我们概述了在四个研究阶段实施这些考虑的指导。结论:该框架可以帮助信息学家在四个研究阶段系统地解决这些问题:项目启动;抽样和招聘;数据收集;还有数据分析。我们鼓励其他人利用这些来自多项研究的见解来促进信息学中的卫生公平。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Yearbook of medical informatics
Yearbook of medical informatics Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
20
期刊介绍: Published by the International Medical Informatics Association, this annual publication includes the best papers in medical informatics from around the world.
期刊最新文献
Reflections Towards the Future of Medical Informatics. The Impact of Clinical Decision Support on Health Disparities and the Digital Divide. Health Information Exchange: Understanding the Policy Landscape and Future of Data Interoperability. The Need for Green and Responsible Medical Informatics and Digital Health: Looking Forward with One Digital Health. Health Equity in Clinical Research Informatics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1