The Construction and Meaning of Race Within Hypertension Guidelines: A Systematic Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Professional society guidelines are evidence-based recommendations intended to promote standardized care and improve health outcomes. Amid increased recognition of the role racism plays in shaping inequitable healthcare delivery, many researchers and practitioners have critiqued existing guidelines, particularly those that include race-based recommendations. Critiques highlight how racism influences the evidence that guidelines are based on and its interpretation. However, few have used a systematic methodology to examine race-based recommendations. This review examines hypertension guidelines, a condition affecting nearly half of all adults in the United States (US), to understand how guidelines reference and develop recommendations related to race. METHODS: A systematic scoping review of all professional guidelines on the management of essential hypertension published between 1977 and 2022 to examine the use and meaning of race categories. RESULTS: Of the 37 guidelines that met the inclusion criteria, we identified a total of 990 mentions of race categories. Black and African/African American were the predominant race categories referred to in guidelines (n = 409). Guideline authors used race in five key domains: describing the prevalence or etiology of hypertension; characterizing prior hypertension studies; describing hypertension interventions; social risk and social determinants of health; the complexity of race. Guideline authors largely used race categories as biological rather than social constructions. None of the guidelines discussed racism and the role it plays in perpetuating hypertension inequities. DISCUSSION: Hypertension guidelines largely refer to race as a distinct and natural category rather than confront the longstanding history of racism within and beyond the medical system. Normalizing race as a biological rather than social construct fails to address racism as a key determinant driving inequities in cardiovascular health. These changes are necessary to produce meaningful structural solutions that advance equity in hypertension education, research, and care delivery.

Extra/ordinary medicine: Toward an anthropology of primary care.

Primary care is at the forefront of healthcare delivery. It is the site of disease prevention and health management and serves as the bridge between communities and the health care system As ethnographers of primary care, in this article we discuss what is gained by situating anthropological inquiry within primary care. We articulate how anthropologists can contribute to a better understanding of the issues that emerge in primary care. We provide a review of anthropological work in primary care and offer empirical data from two ethnographic case studies based in the United States, one focused on social risk screening in primary care and the other examining the diagnosis and care of people with dementia in primary care. Through these cases, we demonstrate how research of and within primary care can open important avenues for the study of the multidimensionality of primary care. This multidimensionality is apparent in the ways the medical field addresses the social and structural experiences of patients, scope of practice and disciplinary boundaries, and the intersection of ordinary and extraordinary medicine that emerge in the care of patients in primary care.

Adjusting Clinical Plans Based on Social Context.

BACKGROUND: Social risk data collection is expanding in community health centers (CHCs). We explored clinicians' practices of adjusting medical care based on their awareness of patients' social risk factors-that is, changes they make to care plans to mitigate the potential impacts of social risk factors on their patients' care and health outcomes-in a set of Texas CHCs. METHODS: Convergent mixed methods. Surveys/interviews explored clinician perspectives on adjusting medical care based on patient social risk factors. Survey data were analyzed with descriptive statistics; interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis and inductive coding. RESULTS: Across 4 CHCs, we conducted 15 clinician interviews and collected 97 surveys. Interviews and surveys overall indicated support for adjustment activities. Two main themes emerged: 1) clinicians reported making frequent adjustments to patient care plans based on their awareness of patients' social contexts, while simultaneously expressing concerns about adjustment; and 2) awareness of patients' social risk factors, and clinician time, training, and experience all influenced clinician adjustments. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians at participating CHCs described routinely adjusting patient care plans based on their patients' social contexts. These adjustments were being made without specific guidelines or training. Standardization of adjustments may facilitate the contextualization of patient care through shared decision making to improve outcomes.

Storylines of family medicine X: standing up for diversity, equity and inclusion.

Storylines of Family Medicine is a 12-part series of thematically linked mini-essays with accompanying illustrations that explore the many dimensions of family medicine as interpreted by individual family physicians and medical educators in the USA and elsewhere around the world. In 'X: standing up for diversity, equity and inclusion', authors address the following themes: 'The power of diversity-why inclusivity is essential to equity in healthcare', 'Medical education for whom?', 'Growing a diverse and inclusive workforce', 'Therapeutic judo-an inclusive approach to patient care', 'Global family medicine-seeing the world "upside down"', 'The inverse care law', 'Social determinants of health as a lens for care', 'Why family physicians should care about human rights' and 'Toward health equity-the opportunome'. May the essays that follow inspire readers to promote change.