Click here to view the Letter to the Editor by Gower et al.
A professional and moral medical education should equip trainees with the knowledge and skills necessary to effectively advance health equity. In this Perspective, we argue that critical theoretical frameworks should be taught to physicians so they can interrogate structural sources of racial inequities and achieve this goal. We begin by elucidating the shortcomings in the pedagogic approaches contemporary Biomedical and Social Determinants of Health (SDOH) curricula use in their discussion of health disparities. In particular, current medical pedagogy lacks self-reflexivity; encodes social identities like race and gender as essential risk factors; neglects to examine root causes of health inequity; and fails to teach learners how to challenge injustice. In contrast, we argue that Critical Race Theory (CRT) is a theoretical framework uniquely adept at addressing these concerns. It offers needed interdisciplinary perspectives that teach learners how to abolish biological racism; leverage historical contexts of oppression to inform interventions; center the scholarship of the marginalized; and understand the institutional mechanisms and ubiquity of racism. In sum, CRT does what biomedical and SDOH curricula cannot: rigorously teach physician trainees how to combat health inequity. In this essay, we demonstrate how the theoretical paradigms operationalized in discussions of health injustice affect the ability of learners to confront health inequity. We expound on CRT tenets, discuss their application to medical pedagogy, and provide an in-depth case study to ground our major argument that theory matters. We introduce MedCRT: a CRT-based framework for medical education, and advocate for its implementation into physician training.
The disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on racially marginalized communities has again raised the issue of what justice in healthcare looks like. Indeed, it is impossible to analyze the meaning of the word justice in the medical context without first discussing the central role of racism in the American scientific and healthcare systems. In summary, we argue that physicians and scientists were the architects and imagination of the racial taxonomy and oppressive machinations upon which this country was founded. This oppressive racial taxonomy reinforced and outlined the myth of biological superiority, which laid the foundation for the political, economic, and systemic power of Whiteness. Therefore, in order to achieve universal racial justice, the nation must first address science and medicine's historical role in scaffolding the structure of racism we bear witness of today. To achieve this objective, one of the first steps, we believe, is for there to be health reparations. More specifically, health reparations should be a central part of establishing racial justice in the United States and not relegated to a secondary status. While other scholars have focused on ways to alleviate healthcare inequities, few have addressed the need for health reparations and the forms they might take. This piece offers the ethical grounds for health reparations and various justice-focused solutions.
guidelines (CPGs) guide medical practice. The use of race in CPGs has the potential to positively or negatively affect structural racism and health inequities.OBJECTIVE To review the use of race in published pediatric CPGs.EVIDENCE REVIEW A literature search of PubMed, Medscape, Emergency Care Research Institute Guidelines Trust, and MetaLib.gov was performed for English-language clinical guidelines addressing patients younger than 19 years of age from January 1, 2016, to April 30, 2021. The study team systematically identified and evaluated all articles that used race and ethnicity terms and then used a critical race theory framework to classify each use according to the potential to either positively or negatively affect structural racism and racial inequities in health care.FINDINGS Of 414 identified pediatric clinical practice guidelines, 126 (30%) met criteria for full review because of the use of race or ethnicity terms and 288 (70%) did not use race or ethnicity terms. The use of a race term occurred 175 times in either background, clinical recommendations, or future directions. A use of race with a potential negative effect occurred 87 times (49.7%) across 73 CPGs and a positive effect 50 times (28.6%) across 45 CPGs. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn this systematic review of US-based pediatric CPGs, race was frequently used in ways that could negatively affect health care inequities. Many opportunities exist for national medical organizations to improve the use of race in CPGs to positively affect health care, particularly for racial and ethnic minoritized communities.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.