Title |
How Should Clinicians Respond to Race-Based Algorithms as Sources of Iatrogenic Harm?
|
---|---|
Published in |
The AMA Journal of Ethic, August 2022
|
DOI | 10.1001/amajethics.2022.720 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Madeleine Maddy Kane, Rachel Bervell, Angela Y Zhang, Jennifer Tsai |
Abstract |
Some clinical algorithms use race as an epidemiological shorthand to "correct" for health determinants that are clinically influential but also variable because they are historical, social, cultural, or economic in origin. Such "correction factors" are both clinically and ethically relevant when their use reinforces racial essentialism and exacerbates racial health inequity. This commentary on a case in which the original vaginal birth after cesarean calculator is used argues that this and similar race-based algorithms should be considered sources of iatrogenic harm by undermining decision sharing in patient-clinician relationships and Black birthing peoples' rights to self-determination. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 11 | 61% |
Unknown | 7 | 39% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 10 | 56% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 28% |
Scientists | 3 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 6 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 2 | 33% |
Professor > Associate Professor | 1 | 17% |
Researcher | 1 | 17% |
Unknown | 2 | 33% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Social Sciences | 2 | 33% |
Psychology | 1 | 17% |
Computer Science | 1 | 17% |
Unknown | 2 | 33% |