Report 5 of the Council on Scientific Affairs (I-00)
Full Text

Classification of Data on Race and Ethnicity

Full Text

This report fulfills Recommendation 7 of Council on Scientific Affairs Report 11 (A-98), Race and Ethnicity as Variables in Medical Research.

Background

The occurrence of many diseases, injuries, and other public health problems is disproportionately higher among some racial and ethnic minorities in the United States.^1-2 For example, a report of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary’s Task Force on Minority Health, using the concept of excess deaths (actual deaths for a minority group compared to the expected number of deaths if the mortality of that group were the same as the white population), identified 42% of deaths among blacks, 25% of deaths among American Indians, and 14% of deaths among the Spanish-surnamed population in Texas as excess deaths.³ Studies have also found racial and ethnic minorities to have higher rates of nonfatal injury,⁴ infant mortality,^5-7 and higher morbidity of a number of diseases, such as hypertension,^1,8-9 cardiovascular disease,^1,10-11 tuberculosis,¹² cancer,^1,13-15 diabetes,^16-18 and obstructive lung disease.¹⁹ Many of these differences remain even after controlling for other risk factors such as socioeconomic status, gender, or health-related behavior.^1,10,20-21

Racial and ethnic minorities in the United States also experience less intensive and lower quality health care.²² Compared to whites, blacks and other minorities are less likely to receive appropriate preventive health care or to complete advance directives,^23-26 are less likely to see specialists or receive newer technological procedures,^23,27 and are more likely to experience lower quality hospital care.²⁸ Racial and ethnic minorities also experience less intensive care, including fewer cardiovascular procedures,^29-33 peripheral vascular procedures,³⁴ cancer-related procedures,^35-36 and organ and tissue transplants.^26,37 In addition, less aggressive treatment has been reported for prenatal care³⁸and a number of diseases, including cancer,^39-40 human immunodeficiency virus infection,^41-42 depression,⁴³ and end-stage renal disease.⁴⁴ Finally, a person’s race or ethnicity is also associated with his or her experience of potentially avoidable procedures, such as amputations or, in cases where do-not-resuscitate orders exist, intubations.^22,25-26

Because of these differences, the collection of data on race and ethnicity has become an important element of patient care as well as public health surveillance efforts designed to monitor differences in health status and access to care. These efforts then directly inform public health policies designed to eliminate racial and ethnic disparities in health and health care. Data are now collected on the maternal health, natality, morbidity, mortality, health behaviors and attitudes, health services utilization, access to health care, and costs associated with care. To be useful, however, many analyses require combinations of data from different sources. For example, research on racial and ethnic variations in infant mortality usually involves vital statistics data on live births as well as data from fetal death records. Therefore, it is essential that race and ethnicity be compatibly defined and measured across datasets. This is not often the case, however,^45-46 and despite the importance of race and ethnicity, health researchers routinely use these data in an uncritical manner, with little attention given to the underlying problems of measurement.^46-49 There remains a need to identify a credible classification system for data on race and ethnicity; one in which the categories and group designations are consistently defined and ascertained to allow for standardized use across different datasets.

Methods

A review of the literature for the years 1980 to 2000 was conducted as part of a broad strategy to investigate the use and interpretation of race and ethnicity in medicine. Journal articles were identified through systematic searches of the MEDLINE database. Other sources included the Illinois Bibliographic Information Services, an online collection of databases that includes PsychINFO and the Social Sciences Index. English-language articles were selected based on their ability to provide information on (1) the definition of race and ethnicity; (2) the classification or measurement of race and ethnicity; and (3) the use and interpretation of race and ethnicity as variables in medical research. Further relevant articles and books were selected from the reference listings of the primary journal articles.

Defining Race and Ethnicity

This report defines race as any relatively large division of persons that can be distinguished on the basis of inherited physical characteristics. Despite the obvious biological aspects of this definition, racial classifications typically rely on phenotypic or physical traits (e.g., skin color, hair, etc.) that are themselves socially defined and often compromised by migration and population admixture that blur the boundaries between races.^1,50 A classic example involves children born to racially mixed marriages and the problems inherent in their being assigned a racial designation on the basis of skin color or some other physical attribute. Ethnicity, on the other hand, is defined as divisions of persons based on national origin or distinctive cultural characteristics.^1,51 While often used interchangeably, or discussed together, race and ethnicity are recognized as being conceptually distinct.^50-51 This recognition is supported by American Medical Association (AMA) policy on the use of race and ethnicity as variables in medical research (H-460.924, Race and Ethnicity as Variables in Medical Research, AMA Policy Database).

There is a tendency within medicine to assume that race and ethnicity reflect an underlying genetic homogeneity (e.g., racial differences are genetically determined).⁴⁹ This tendency persists despite a growing recognition of race and ethnicity as social rather than biological constructs.^1,47,51-52 Evidence suggests that the phenotypic characteristics often used to define or assign a person’s race are only weakly associated with genotypic variation.^53-54 It is estimated that only 7% to 10% of all possible human genetic variation occurs between the so-called major races (e.g., Caucasoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid), indicating that there is considerably more genetic variation within races than between them.^53-55 Ethnicity, on the other hand, is more universally recognized as being socially defined, incorporating any number of combinations of social, geographic, religious, linguistic, dietary, and other variables used to identify individuals and populations. For example, a study examining rates of cancer in Bombay, India, distinguished groups based on religious affiliation.⁵⁶ Another study of contraceptive use in Kuwait made cultural distinctions based on attachments to a native tribal system.⁵⁷ Additional evidence for the social construction of race and ethnicity lies in the fact that neither race nor ethnicity are fixed or static; they change or evolve depending on changes in the social, demographic, economic, and political forces evident in society.⁵⁸

Classifying Race and Ethnicity

Recognizing race and ethnicity as being socially defined presents a number of challenges to public health surveillance and medicine.^58-59 To be useful to public health or medicine, race and ethnic designations must be consistent. They must also be reliable (e.g., whether data differ by measure or method of collection), valid (e.g., categories used provide a substantial explanation for the observed condition), exclusive and exhaustive (e.g., whether they include all members of the population and include each member in only one category), and meaningful to respondents.⁴⁶ However, because of the general lack of scientific consensus on race and ethnicity, as well as the dynamic nature of racial or ethnic definition, current classification systems have failed to meet these requirements, casting doubt on the utility of racial and ethnic analyses.^58,60-61 Debates have focused on whether or not current classification systems reinforce existing stereotypes, reproduce inequalities, and obscure true causal relationships.^60-61 Critiques have also stressed the need to explore the complex relationships between race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status to understand the association of either race or ethnicity with adverse health outcomes.

The Revised Office of Management and Budget Directive 15

Despite these problems, current designations of race and ethnicity continue to play important roles in understanding health and determining access to health care.⁵⁹ One of the most influential classification systems emerged out of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Statistical Policy Directive No. 15 (issued in 1977 and revised in 1997). The revised directive designates five "racial" groups – white, black or African American, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and American Indian or Alaska Native – and one "ethnic" category, Hispanic or Latino.⁶² The revised guidelines also permit multiple racial identification in an attempt to capture the growing the diversity of the U.S. population (e.g., children of mixed race). Despite these changes, the revised OMB Directive 15 guidelines have been subject to much of the same criticisms leveled at other classification systems for race and ethnicity.^46,63 However, the OMB has stated explicitly from the onset that its standards were not based on anthropological or scientific principles. Despite this lack of science, the system has had far reaching effects on public health and medical research through its impact on the collection, tabulation and reporting of vital events, such as births, deaths, and fetal deaths, and census data.

Despite permitting multiracial designations, there remains a perception within health and health services research that the OMB guidelines fail to address the growing diversity of the U.S. population. For example, the "American Indian or Alaska Native" category specified by the OMB must encompass more than 500 federally recognized American Indian tribes and entities.⁴⁸ Similarly, the "Asian" and "Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander" categories lump together persons from 28 Asian countries and more than 25 Pacific Island cultures respectively.⁶⁴ What most fail to realize, however, is that the OMB provides guidelines on a set of minimum categories for the collection of data on race and ethnicity. They can be expanded upon to meet the needs of research, so long as the expanded categories can be back- or reverse-coded into the base categories specified by the OMB directive. Thus, the potential coverage and specificity of this system is much greater than generally perceived.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (CDC/ATSDR) Health Information and Surveillance Systems Board have developed guidelines for the implementation of an expanded classification system of race and ethnicity.⁶⁵ The Common Data Elements system creates a number of hierarchical levels out of the original OMB categories. For example, the OMB racial category of "American Indian or Alaska Native" is initially split into "American Indian" and "Alaska Native." Individual tribes and entities are then specified in greater detail for each of these categories in the third and fourth levels, resulting in a total of 839 unique identifiers (567 for American Indian and 272 for Alaska Native). Similarly, the OMB ethnic category of "Hispanic or Latino" is initially broken down into 8 identifiers (Spaniard, Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, etc.). From these new categories an additional 33 subcategories are identified, resulting in a total of 41 unique identifiers for ethnicity. Because identifiers are hierarchical, researchers can use the Common Data Elements system to classify race and/or ethnicity to increasing levels of specificity. The CDC/ATSDR implementation guide for this system also provides instruction on reverse-coding to the original OMB categories and can be found at http://www.cdc.gov/od/hissb/docs.htm.

Another major advantage of the classification system outlined by OMB Directive 15 is its widespread use by state and federal agencies monitoring health status and health care in the United States. Most state health departments currently use the OMB guidelines in their surveillance of vital events and notifiable diseases. Federal agencies using the OMB guidelines for the collection of data on race and ethnicity include the CDC, the National Center for Health Statistics, the National Cancer Institute, the Indian Health Service, Immigration and Naturalization Services, the Health Care Financing Administration, and the Bureau of the Census. Data from these agencies are frequently used in health and health services research as either numerators for health indicators or population-based denominators.

Conclusion

Theoretically, genetic reference data or gene markers could be used to calculate the probability of an individual falling into one or more genetically defined population subgroups. To date, however, no reports of attempts to assign or classify race by these means have been published. Thus researchers are forced to acknowledge the social characteristics of racial and ethnic identification and to rely on classification systems that lack scientific consensus in attempts to understand the causal pathways that explain why race and ethnicity are often markers for adverse health risks and outcomes.^48,50-52,58 Acknowledging these limitations, a 1993 Workshop on the Use of Race and Ethnicity in Public Health Surveillance sponsored by the CDC and the ATSDR recommended that data on race and ethnicity should be collected only when useful for public health purposes; that data on racial and ethnic differences should be analyzed in relation to potential confounding variables such as socioeconomic status; and that the justification and methods for measurement of race and ethnicity be clearly defined and explicitly stated.⁵⁸

American Medical Association Policy

The AMA has limited policy related to the issues raised in this report: H-460.924, Race and Ethnicity as Variables in Medical Research, and H-350.983, Federal Guidelines for Standardization of Race/Ethnicity Codings (AMA Policy Database). The former recognizes race and ethnicity as being conceptually distinct and encourages researchers to recognize the limitations of all current methods to classify race and ethnicity by stating explicitly how race and/or ethnic taxonomies were developed or selected. The latter policy recommending the use of the Department of Defense (DOD) coding for the classification of data on race and ethnicity is made problematic by the fact that the DOD has begun replacing its system with one compatible with the revised OMB criteria.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The following statement, recommended by the Council on Scientific Affairs, was adopted by the AMA House of Delegates as AMA policy at the December 2000 AMA Interim Meeting:

AMA Policy H-350.983 is amended to read:

1. Polednak AP. Racial and Ethnic Differences in Disease. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989.
2. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2000. Conference Edition. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC; 1990.
3. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Report of the Secretary’s Task Force on Black and Minority Health. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC; 1985.
4. Halasan C, et al. 1990-1991 New Mexico Tribe-specific Vital Statistics. States of New Mexico, Department of Health, Public Health Division, Bureau of Vital Records and Health Statistics, Sante Fe; 1992
5. Differences in infant mortality between blacks and whites – United States, 1980-1991. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1994; 43(16):288-289.
6. Kleinman JC, Fingerhut LA, Prager K. Differences in infant mortality by race, nativity status, and other maternal characteristics. Am J Dis Child. 1991;145:194-199.
7. Kassel SS, Kleinman JC, Koontz AM, Hogue CJ, Berendes HW. Racial differences in pregnancy outcomes. Clin Perinatol. 1988;15:745-754.
8. Levinson S, Liu K, Stamler J, Stamler R, Whipple I, Ausbrook D, Berkson D. Ethnic differences in blood pressure and heart rate of Chicago school children. AJE. 1985;122:366-377.
9. Profant J, Dimsdale JE. Race and diurnal blood pressure patterns. a review and meta-analyses. Hypertension. 1999;33(5):1099-1104.
10. Winkleby MA, Kraemer HC, Ahn DK, Varady AN. Ethnic and socioeconomic differences in cardiovascular disease risk factors: findings for women from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988-1994. JAMA. 1998;280(4):356-362.
11. Manolio TA, Burke GL, Psaty BM, et al. Black-white differences in subclinical cardiovascular disease older adults: the Cardiovascular Health Study. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995;48(9):1141-1152.
12. Stead WW, Senner JW, Reddick WT, Lofgren JP. Racial differences in susceptibility to infection by Mycobacterium tuberculosis. N Engl J Med. 1990;322(7):422-427.
13. Ries LA, Wingo PA, Miller DS, Howe HL, Weir HK, Rosenberg HM, Vernon SW, Cronin K, Edwards BK. The annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1973-1997, with a special section on colorectal cancer. Cancer. 2000;88(10):2398-2424.
14. Samelson EJ, Speers MA, Ferguson R, Bennett C. Racial differences in cervical cancer mortality in Chicago. Am J Public Health. 1994;84(6):1007-1009.
15. Chevarley F, White E. Recent trends in breast cancer mortality among white and black US women. Am J Public Health. 1997;87(5):775-781.
16. Brancati FL, Kao WHL, Folsom AR, Watson RL, Szklo M. Incident Type 2 diabetes mellitus in African American and white adults: the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study. JAMA. 2000;282(17):2253-2259.
17. Harris MI, Flegal KM, Cowie CC, et al. Prevalence of diabetes, impaired fasting glucose, and impaired glucose tolerance in U.S. adults. Diabetes Care. 1999;22(3):403-408.
18. Resnick HE, Valsania P, Halter JB, Lin X. Differential effects of BMI on diabetes risk among black and white Americans. Diabetes Care. 1998;21:1828-1835.
19. Joseph CL, Ownby DR, Peterson EL, Johnson CC. Racial differences in physiologic parameters related to asthma among middle-class children. Chest. 2000;117(5):1336-1344.
20. Kington RS, Smith JP. Socioeconomic status and racial and ethnic differences in functional status associated with chronic disease. Am J Public Health. 1997;87:805-810.
21. Easterbrook PJ, Chmiel JS, Hoover DR, et al. Racial and ethnic differences in human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) seroprevalence among homosexual and bisexual men. the Multicenter AIDS Study. Am J Epidemiol. 1993;138(6):415-429.
22. Fiscella K, Franks P, Gold MR, Clancy CM. Inequality in quality: addressing socioeconomic, racial, and ethnic disparities in health care. JAMA. 2000;283:2579-2584.
23. Escarce JJ, Epstein KR, Colby DC, Schwartz JS. Racial differences in the elderly’s use of medical procedures and diagnostic tests. Am J Public Health. 1993;83:948-954.
24. O’Malley MS, Earp JL, Harris RP. Race and mammography use in two North Carolina counties. Am J Public Health. 1997;87:782-786.
25. Gornick ME, Eggers PW, Reilly TW, et al. Effects of race and income on mortality and use of services among Medicare beneficiaries. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:791-799.
26. Berger JT. Culture and ethnicity in clinical care. Arch Intern Med. 1998;158(19):2085-2090.
27. Kogan MD, Kotelchuck M, Johnson S. Racial differences in late prenatal care visits. J Perinatol. 1993;13:14-21.
28. Kahn KL, Pearson ML, Harrison ER, et al. Health care for black and poor hospitalized Medicare patients. JAMA. 1994;271:1169-1174.
29. Whittle J, Conigliaro J, Good CB, Lofgren RP. Racial differences in the use of invasive cardiovascular procedures among male veterans admitted to hospitals in the Department of Veterans Affairs medical system. N Engl J Med. 1993;329:621-627.
30. Peterson ED, Wright SM, Daley J, Thibault GE. Racial variation in cardiac procedure use and survival following acute myocardial infarction in the Department of Veterans Affairs. JAMA. 1994;271:1175-1180.
31. Ayanian JZ, Udvarhelyi IS, Gatsonis CA, Pashos CL, Epstein AM. Racial differences in the use of revascularization procedures after coronary angiography. JAMA. 1993;269:2642-2646.
32. Peterson ED Shaw LK, DeLong ER, et al. Racial variation in the use of coronary-revascularization procedures. N Engl J Med. 1997;336:480-486.
33. Carlisle DM, Leake BD, Shapiro MF. Racial and ethnic differences in the use of invasive cardiac procedures among cardiac patients in Los Angeles County, 1986 through 1988. Am J Public Health. 1995;85:352-356.
34. Guadagnoli E, Ayanian JZ, Gibbons G, et al. The influence of race on the use of surgical procedures for treatment of peripheral vascular disease of the lower extremities. Arch Surg. 1995;130:381-386.
35. Cleeland CS, Gonin R, Baez L, et al. Pain and treatment of pain in minority patients with cancer. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127:813-816.
36. Bach PB, Cramer LD, Warren JL, Begg CB. Racial differences in the treatment of early-stage lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 1999;341(16):1198-1205.
37. Alexander GC, Sehgal AR. Barriers to cadaveric renal transplantation among blacks, women and the poor. JAMA. 1998;280(13):1148-1152.
38. Collins SC, Hall A, Neuhaus C. US Minority Health: A Chartbook. New York: The Commonwealth Fund; 1999.
39. Earle CC, Venditti LN, Neumann PJ, Gelber RD, Weinstein MC, Potosky AL, Weeks JC. Who gets chemotherapy for metastatic lung cancer? Chest. 2000;117(5):1239-1246.
40. Chang SW, Kerlikowske K, Napoles-Springer A, Posner SF, Sickles EA, Perez-Stable EJ. Racial differences in timeliness of follow-up after abnormal screening mammography. Cancer. 1996;78(7):1395-1402.
41. Moore RD, Stanton D, Gopalan R, Chaisson RE. Racial differences in the use of drug therapy for HIV disease in an urban community. N Engl J Med. 1994;330(11):763-768.
42. Shapiro MF, Morton SC, McCaffrey DF, et al. Variations in the care of HIV-infected adults in the United States: results from the HIV Cost and Services Utilization Study. JAMA. 1999;281(24):2305-2315.
43. Sirey JA, Meyers BS, Bruce ML, et al. Predictors of antidepressant prescription and early use among depressed outpatients. Am J Psychiatry. 1999;156:690-696.
44. Department of Health and Human Services. ESRD Core Indicators Project, 1996 Annual Report. Baltimore, MD: Health Care Financing Administration and the Health Standards and Quality Bureau; 1997.
45. Hahn RA, Mulinare J, Teutsch SM. Inconsistencies in coding of race and ethnicity between birth and death in US infants: a new look at infant mortality, 1983 through 1985. JAMA. 1992;267(2):259-263.
46. Hahn RA. The state of federal health statistics on racial and ethnic groups. JAMA. 1992;267(2):268-271.
47. Williams DR. The concept of race in Health Services Research: 1966 to 1990. Health Serv Res. 1994;29:261-274.
48. Williams DR. Race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status: measurement and methodological issues. Int J Health Serv. 1996;26(3):483-505.
49. Witzig R. The medicalization of race: scientific legitimization of a flawed social construct. Ann Intern Med. 1996;125(8):675-679.
50. Wilkinson DY, King G. Conceptual and methodological issues in the use of race as a variable: policy implications. Milbank Q. 1987;65:56-71.
51. Senior PA, Bhopal R. Ethnicity as a variable in epidemiological research. BMJ. 1994;309:327-330.
52. Williams DR. Race and health: basic questions, emerging directions. Ann Epidemiol. 1997;7:322-333.
53. Jackson FL. Race and ethnicity as biological constructs. Ethnicity Dis. 1992;2:120-125.
54. Rose S, Kamin LI, Lewontin RC. Not in Our Genes: Biology, Ideology, and Human Nature. New York: Penguin; 1984.
55. Zuckerman M. Some dubious premises in research and theory on racial differences: scientific, social and ethical issues. Am Psychol. 1990;45:1297-1303.
56. Jussawalla DJ, Yeole B, Natekar MV. Cancer in Indian Moslems. Cancer. 1985;55:1149-1158.
57. Al-Gallaf K, Al-Wazzan H, Al-Namash H, et al. Ethnic differences in contraceptive use in Kuwait: a clinic-based study. Soc Sci Med. 1995;41:1023-1031.
58. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Use of race and ethnicity in public health surveillance. summary of the CDC/ATSDR Workshop. MMWR. 1993;42 (No. RR-10): (Inclusive page numbers).
59. Hahn RA, Stroup DF. Race and ethnicity in public health surveillance: criteria for the scientific use of social categories. Public Health Rep. 1994;109(1):7-15.
60. Schulman KA, Rubenstein LE, Chesley FD, Eisenberg JM. The roles of race and socioeconomic factors in health services research. Health Serv Res. 1995;30:180-195.
61. Osborne NG, Feit MD. The use of race in medical research. JAMA. 1992;267:275-279.
62. Recommendations from the Interagency Committee for the Review of the Racial and Ethnic Standards to the Office of Management and Budget concerning changes to the standards for the classification of Federal data on race and ethnicity [notice]. Federal Register. 1997;62:36873-36946.
63. Bennett T. "Racial" and ethnic classification: two steps forward and one step back? Public Health Rep. 1997;112:477-480.
64. Lin-Fu JS. Asian and Pacific Islanders: an overview of demographic characteristics and health care issues. Asian Am Pacific Islander J Health. 1993;1:20-36.
65. Health Information and Surveillance Systems Board. Common Data Elements. Implementation Guide, Version 2.4. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2000.