General surgery textbooks and surgical disparities
Peter A Borowsky,Kyung Yoon,Ajiri Eroraha,Janice M Bonsu,Daniella Kington,Phyllis E Lawani,Randi N Smith,John N Bliton,Peter A. Borowsky,Janice M. Bonsu,Phyllis E. Lawani,Randi N. Smith,John N. Bliton
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnma.2023.12.009
IF: 2.739
2024-01-01
Journal of the National Medical Association
Abstract:INTRODUCTION: Some academic textbooks have previously disseminated simplistic or even incorrect conceptions of race. Propagation of such ideas in General Surgery could contribute to gaps in quality of care received by minority patients. This study aims to determine whether General Surgery textbooks provide a thorough understanding of racial disparities.METHODS: General Surgery texts were drawn from Doody's list, an industry-standard list of textbooks for medical education. Technical guides, atlases, and books for non-General Surgery professionals were excluded. Passages mentioning medical differences amongst racial and ethnic groups were extracted. Six binary classifications were made, based on whether passages (a) described interventions to alleviate difference; (b) addressed environmental mediators of difference; (c) described the contribution of racism or discrimination; (d) used causal language to connect race to difference; (e) referred to known, heritable genetic mechanisms; and (f) directly provided a reference. Types of intervention were also extracted. A heuristic scale was calculated granting one point each for classifications a-c and losing one point for classification d. Three authors performed classifications, and raw agreement and Cohen's kappa were used to assess inter-rater reliability.RESULTS: Thirteen textbooks from Doody's list contained 511 passages discussing medical differences among racial/ethnic groups. Among passages, 25% discussed white people, 22% Black people/African Americans, 19% Asians, 9% Latinos, 4% Jewish/Ashkenazi people, 3% Native Americans, and 18% other. Fifteen passages (2.9%) used language indicating race was the cause of medical difference, and only two explicitly discussed racism or discrimination. Most passages (370, 72.3%) received a scale of 0. 120 (23.5%) received a scale of 1, eight (1.2%) received a scale of 2, and zero received a scale of 3. The mean passage scale was 0.24 and is not changing with time (regression coefficient -0.006/year, p = 0.538). Agreement was 91.2% across all categories and overall Kappa was 0.62.CONCLUSIONS: General Surgery textbooks do not provide readers with scientifically thorough understanding of health disparities. Teaching more comprehensive conceptions, including systemic causes and the role of racism, may prevent reflexive association of minority patients with poor outcomes. Future editions should include these details where disparities are discussed in an independent, comprehensive section.
medicine, general & internal