Cross-sectional Comparison of Disparities by Race Using White vs Hispanic as Reference Among Children and Youths With Developmental Disabilities Referred for Speech Therapy

Abstract

ImportanceHealth care research on racial disparities among children and youths has historically used the White race as a reference category with which other racial and ethnic groups are compared, which may inadvertently set up Whiteness as a standard for health.ObjectiveTo compare 2 interpretations of an analysis of racial disparities in speech therapy receipt among children and youths with developmental disabilities: a traditional, White-referenced analysis and a Hispanic majority-referenced analysis.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis cross-sectional study used multiple logistic regression to analyze speech therapy referrals for children, adolescents, and transition age youths in an integrated health care system in Southern California from 2017 to 2020. Eligible participants were children and youths up to age 26 years with 1 or more diagnosed intellectual or developmental disability (eg, autism spectrum disorder, speech or language delay, developmental delay, Down syndrome, and others).ExposuresChild or youth race and ethnicity as reported by parents or caregivers (Asian, Black and African American, Hispanic and Latinx, American Indian or Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, White, multiple, and other).Main Outcomes and MeasuresReceipt of speech therapy within 1 year of referral.ResultsA total 66 402 referrals were included; 65 833 referrals (99.1%) were for children under age 17 years, 47 323 (71.3%) were for boys, and 39 959 (60.2%) were commercially insured. A majority of participants were identified as Hispanic (36 705 [55.3%]); 6167 (9.3%) were identified as Asian, 4810 (7.2%) as Black, and 14 951 (22.5%) as White. In the traditional racial disparities model where the reference category was White, referrals of children and youths who identified as Hispanic, Black, Pacific Islander, and other had lower odds of actual receipt of speech therapy compared with referrals for White children and youths (Hispanic: OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.75-0.83; Black: OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.66-0.78; Pacific Islander: OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.57-0.98). When using the majority race group (Hispanic) as the reference category, referrals for children and youths who identified as White (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.20-1.30), Asian (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.12-1.30), and multiracial (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.08-1.71) had higher odds of resulting in actual service receipt in comparison with referrals for Hispanic children and youths.Conclusions and RelevanceThe cross-sectional study demonstrates the value of decentering Whiteness in interpreting racial disparities research and considering racial differences against multiple referents. Racial disparities researchers should consider investigating multiple between-group differences instead of exclusively using White as the default reference category.

Assessing Healthcare Professionals’ Identification of Paediatric Dermatological Conditions in Darker Skin Tones

“…However, recent studies on equity and inclusion in medical education, training, access and research may easily support our hypothesis that there is not enough equity on this issue. Participation in clinical trials is historically imbalanced according to ethnicity [ 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 ], access in medical education [ 19 , 21 ] and access to care and diagnostics [ 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 ]. More specifically regarding paediatric dermatological conditions, it is well discussed the issue of the late recognition of jaundice in Black newborns and the disproportionate impact of kernicterus on this population [ 27 ].…”

Operationalizing Equity, Inclusion, and Access in Research Practice at a Large Academic Institution

“… 8 – 10 Retrospective studies lack standard definitions for sociodemographic characteristics, have poor data and measurement fidelity, inappropriately treat sociodemographic characteristics as variables, unjustly center studies on white participants, and are unable to measure effects of structural racism on individual health. 11 – 14 …”