For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
28
views
252
references
 Top references
cited by
46
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      178
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Racism in healthcare: a scoping review

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Racism constitutes a barrier towards achieving equitable healthcare as documented in research showing unequal processes of delivering, accessing, and receiving healthcare across countries and healthcare indicators. This review summarizes studies examining how racism is discussed and produced in the process of delivering, accessing and receiving healthcare across various national contexts.

          Method

          The PRISMA guidelines for scoping reviews were followed and databases were searched for peer reviewed empirical articles in English across national contexts. No starting date limitation was applied for this review. The end date was December 1, 2020. The review scoped 213 articles. The results were summarized, coded and thematically categorized in regards to the aim.

          Results

          The review yielded the following categories: healthcare users’ experiences of racism in healthcare; healthcare staff’s experiences of racism; healthcare staff’s racial attitudes and beliefs; effects of racism in healthcare on various treatment choices; healthcare staff’s reflections on racism in healthcare and; antiracist training in healthcare. Racialized minorities experience inadequate healthcare and being dismissed in healthcare interactions. Experiences of racism are associated with lack of trust and delay in seeking healthcare. Racialized minority healthcare staff experience racism in their workplace from healthcare users and colleagues and lack of organizational support in managing racism. Research on healthcare staff’s racial attitudes and beliefs demonstrate a range of negative stereotypes regarding racialized minority healthcare users who are viewed as difficult. Research on implicit racial bias illustrates that healthcare staff exhibit racial bias in favor of majority group. Healthcare staff’s racial bias may influence medical decisions negatively. Studies examining healthcare staff’s reflections on racism and antiracist training show that healthcare staff tend to construct healthcare as impartial and that healthcare staff do not readily discuss racism in their workplace.

          Conclusions

          The USA dominates the research. It is imperative that research covers other geo-political contexts. Research on racism in healthcare is mainly descriptive, atheoretical, uses racial categories uncritically and tends to ignore racialization processes making it difficult to conceptualize racism. Sociological research on racism could inform research on racism as it theoretically explains racism’s structural embeddedness, which could aid in tackling racism to provide good quality care.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-022-13122-y.

          Related collections

          Most cited references252

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

          Adrian Aldcroft, Chantelle Garritty, Simon Lewin … (2018)
          Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.
          Article 0 comments Cited 7902 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews.

            Micah D.J. Peters, Christina M Godfrey, Hanan Khalil … (2015)
            Reviews of primary research are becoming more common as evidence-based practice gains recognition as the benchmark for care, and the number of, and access to, primary research sources has grown. One of the newer review types is the 'scoping review'. In general, scoping reviews are commonly used for 'reconnaissance' - to clarify working definitions and conceptual boundaries of a topic or field. Scoping reviews are therefore particularly useful when a body of literature has not yet been comprehensively reviewed, or exhibits a complex or heterogeneous nature not amenable to a more precise systematic review of the evidence. While scoping reviews may be conducted to determine the value and probable scope of a full systematic review, they may also be undertaken as exercises in and of themselves to summarize and disseminate research findings, to identify research gaps, and to make recommendations for the future research. This article briefly introduces the reader to scoping reviews, how they are different to systematic reviews, and why they might be conducted. The methodology and guidance for the conduct of systematic scoping reviews outlined below was developed by members of the Joanna Briggs Institute and members of five Joanna Briggs Collaborating Centres.
            Article 0 comments Cited 2055 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found

              Racism and Health: Evidence and Needed Research

              David Williams, Jourdyn Lawrence, Brigette Davis (2019)
              In recent decades, there has been remarkable growth in scientific research examining the multiple ways in which racism can adversely affect health. This interest has been driven in part by the striking persistence of racial/ethnic inequities in health and the empirical evidence that indicates that socioeconomic factors alone do not account for racial/ethnic inequities in health. Racism is considered a fundamental cause of adverse health outcomes for racial/ethnic minorities and racial/ethnic inequities in health. This article provides an overview of the evidence linking the primary domains of racism—structural racism, cultural racism, and individual-level discrimination—to mental and physical health outcomes. For each mechanism, we describe key findings and identify priorities for future research. We also discuss evidence for interventions to reduce racism and describe research needed to advance knowledge in this area.
              Article 0 comments Cited 663 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Sarah Hamed: sarah.hamed@soc.uu.se
                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): BMC Public Health
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): BMC Public Health
                Title: BMC Public Health
                Publisher: BioMed Central (London )
                ISSN (Electronic): 1471-2458
                Publication date (Electronic): 16 May 2022
                Publication date PMC-release: 16 May 2022
                Publication date Collection: 2022
                Volume: 22
                Electronic Location Identifier: 988
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.8993.b, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 9457, Department of Sociology, , Uppsala University, ; Uppsala, Sweden
                [2 ]Skaraborg Institute for Research and Development, Skövde, Sweden
                [3 ]GRID grid.8993.b, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 9457, Department of Government, , Uppsala University, ; Uppsala, Sweden
                Article
                Publisher ID: 13122
                DOI: 10.1186/s12889-022-13122-y
                PMC ID: 9112453
                PubMed ID: 35578322
                SO-VID: 374010c2-5123-4835-b54d-2b6641af0731
                Copyright © © The Author(s) 2022
                License:

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                Date received : 14 January 2022
                Date accepted : 30 March 2022
                Funding
                Funded by: Uppsala University
                Open Access :

                Open access funding provided by Uppsala University.

                Categories
                Subject: Research
                Custom metadata
                issue-copyright-statement © The Author(s) 2022

                ScienceOpen disciplines: Public health
                Keywords: racism,discrimination,healthcare,review
                Data availability:
                ScienceOpen disciplines: Public health
                Keywords: racism, discrimination, healthcare, review

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content178

                See all similar

                Cited by45

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors3,560

                See all reference authors