An Analysis of the Use of Race and Ethnicity in Georgetown University Medical Center Publications

Abstract

ABSTRACT Background Racial and ethnic health disparities remain a pressing issue in the United States, especially as the country grows more diverse. How race and ethnicity are discussed in medical research can influence data interpretation and the application of findings. We evaluated the presentation of race and ethnicity in Georgetown University Medical Center and MedStar-affiliated scientific research articles published in the years 2010 and 2020, focusing on whether these factors were framed as social or biological constructs and how this framing may have changed over this decade. Methods We conducted a targeted literature search using MEDLINE and PsycINFO databases with predetermined racial and ethnic terms for 2010 and 2020. The initial search yielded 81 publications from 2010 and 222 from 2020. Of these, 54 from 2010 were eligible, and 163 from 2020 were eligible. Blinded reviewers independently scored each publication for the context of race or ethnicity mentions, explanations provided (biological, social, both, or none), and race or ethnicity identification method. Results The definition of race and ethnicity as sociodemographic factors increased significantly between the years 2010 and 2020 (5.6% vs 31.9%, P<.001). However, this increase in sociodemographic labeling occurred alongside a decline in social or multifactorial explanations for differences in race/ethnicity (58.1% vs 43.9%) and a slight increase in biological framing (25.6% vs 28.6%), suggesting a shift in terminology without a corresponding increase in deeper contextual interpretation. Race was descriptively more often contextualized as biological (25.6% vs 28.6%), while social or multifactorial explanations decreased, though these changes were not statistically significant. No statistically significant change was observed in identification methods for race/ethnicity (P=.16), though self-identification declined from 80.4% to 66.4% while researcher-assigned race increased from 2.2% to 12.3% over the same period. Conclusion These findings emphasize the need for nuanced discussions of race/ethnicity in biomedical research that prioritize social determinants and avoid biological essentialism. These findings support the need for institutional guidelines to promote responsible research practices.