Cross-cultural adaptation of discrimination and vigilance scales in ELSA-Brasil / Adaptação transcultural de escalas de discriminação e vigilância no ELSA-Brasil

ABSTRACT OBJECTIVE To describe the process of cross-cultural adaptation for the use in Brazil of the everyday discrimination scale (EDS) and the heightened vigilance scale (HVS) applied in the Longitudinal Study of Adult Health (ELSA-Brasil). METHODS Conceptual, item and semantic equivalence analyses were conducted by a group of four epidemiologists; evaluation of measurement equivalence (factorial analysis of configural, metric and scalar structures, according to sociodemographic characteristics) and reliability. A total of 11,987 participants responded to the discrimination scale, and a subsample of 260 people participated in the test-retest study. In the case of HVS, 8,916 people responded, while 149 individuals did so in the test-retest study. RESULTS The scales presented conceptual, item and semantic equivalence pertinent in the Brazilian context, in addition to adequate correspondence of referential/denotative meaning of terms and also of the general/connotative of the items. The confirmatory factor analysis of EDS revealed a unidimensional structure, with residual correlations between two pairs of items, presenting configural and metric invariance among the four subgroups evaluated. Scalar invariance was identified according to sex and age group, but it was not observed for race/color and education. Heightened vigilance showed low loads and high residuals, with inadequate adjustment indicators. For the items of the discrimination scale the weighted kappa coefficient (Kp) ranged from 0.44 to 0.78, and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was 0.87. For HVS items, the Kp ranged from 0.47 to 0.59 and the ICC was 0.83. CONCLUSIONS Although there are correlated items, it was concluded that the EDS is a promising scale to evaluate experiences of perceived discrimination in Brazilian daily life. However, the heightened vigilance scale did not present equivalence of measurement in the current format.

RESUMO OBJETIVO Descrever o processo de adaptação transcultural para o uso no Brasil das escalas de discriminação no dia a dia (EDD) e vigilância intensificada (EVI), aplicadas no Estudo Longitudinal de Saúde do Adulto (ELSA-Brasil). MÉTODOS Foram realizadas análises das equivalências conceitual, de itens e semântica conduzidas por um grupo de quatro epidemiologistas; avaliação da equivalência de mensuração (análise fatorial das estruturas configural, métrica e escalares, segundo características sociodemográficas) e a confiabilidade. Responderam à escala de discriminação 11.987 participantes e uma subamostra de 260 pessoas participaram do estudo teste-reteste. No caso da EVI, 8.916 pessoas responderam e 149 indivíduos no estudo teste-reteste. RESULTADOS As escalas apresentaram equivalências conceitual, de itens e semântica pertinentes no contexto brasileiro, além de adequada correspondência de significado referencial/denotativa de termos e também da geral/conotativa dos itens. A análise fatorial confirmatória da EDD revelou estrutura unidimensional, com correlações residuais entre dois pares de itens, apresentando invariância configural e métrica entre os quatro subgrupos avaliados. Identificou-se invariância escalar segundo sexo e faixa etária, mas não foi observada para recortes de raça/cor e escolaridade. A vigilância intensificada apresentou cargas baixas e resíduos altos, com indicadores de ajuste inadequados. Para os itens da escala de discriminação o coeficiente de concordância kappa ponderado (Kp) variou de 0,44 a 0,78, e o coeficiente de correlação intraclasse (CCI) foi 0,87. Para os itens da EVI, o Kp variou de 0,47 a 0,59 e o CCI foi 0,83. CONCLUSÕES Embora haja itens correlacionados, concluiu-se que a EDD é uma escala promissora para avaliar experiências de discriminação percebidas no cotidiano brasileiro. Entretanto, a EVI não apresentou equivalência de mensuração no formato atual.

Patient-Reported Experiences of Discrimination in the US Health Care System.

Importance: Although considerable evidence exists on the association between negative health outcomes and daily experiences of discrimination, less is known about such experiences in the health care system at the national level. It is critically necessary to measure and address discrimination in the health care system to mitigate harm to patients and as part of the larger ongoing project of responding to health inequities. Objectives: To (1) identify the national prevalence of patient-reported experiences of discrimination in the health care system, the frequency with which they occur, and the main types of discrimination experienced and (2) examine differences in the prevalence of discrimination across demographic groups. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional national survey fielded online in May 2019 used a general population sample from the National Opinion Research Center's AmeriSpeak Panel. Surveys were sent to 3253 US adults aged 21 years or older, including oversamples of African American respondents, Hispanic respondents, and respondents with annual household incomes below 200% of the federal poverty level. Main Outcomes and Measures: Analyses drew on 3 survey items measuring patient-reported experiences of discrimination, the primary types of discrimination experienced, the frequency with which they occurred, and the demographic and health-related characteristics of the respondents. Weighted bivariable and multivariable logistic regressions were conducted to assess associations between experiences of discrimination and several demographic and health-related characteristics. Results: Of 2137 US adult respondents who completed the survey (66.3% response rate; unweighted 51.0% female; mean [SD] age, 49.6 [16.3] years), 458 (21.4%) reported that they had experienced discrimination in the health care system. After applying weights to generate population-level estimates, most of those who had experienced discrimination (330 [72.0%]) reported experiencing it more than once. Of 458 reporting experiences of discrimination, racial/ethnic discrimination was the most common type (79 [17.3%]), followed by discrimination based on educational or income level (59 [12.9%]), weight (53 [11.6%]), sex (52 [11.4%]), and age (44 [9.6%]). In multivariable analysis, the odds of experiencing discrimination were higher for respondents who identified as female (odds ratio [OR], 1.88; 95% CI, 1.50-2.36) and lower for older respondents (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.98-0.99), respondents earning at least $50 000 in annual household income (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.60-0.95), and those reporting good (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.46-0.75) or excellent (OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.31-0.56) health compared with poor or fair health. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this study suggest that experiences of discrimination in the health care system appear more common than previously recognized and deserve considerable attention. These findings contribute to understanding of the scale at which interpersonal discrimination occurs in the US health care system and provide crucial evidence for next steps in assessing the risks and consequences of such discrimination. The findings also point to a need for further analysis of how interpersonal discrimination interacts with structural inequities and social determinants of health to build effective responses.

Four Faces of Fair Subject Selection.

Although the principle of fair subject selection is a widely recognized requirement of ethical clinical research, it often yields conflicting imperatives, thus raising major ethical dilemmas regarding participant selection. In this paper, we diagnose the source of this problem, arguing that the principle of fair subject selection is best understood as a bundle of four distinct sub-principles, each with normative force and each yielding distinct imperatives: (1) fair inclusion; (2) fair burden sharing; (3) fair opportunity; and (4) fair distribution of third-party risks. We first map out these distinct sub-principles, and then identify the ways in which they yield conflicting imperatives for the design of inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the recruitment of participants. We then offer guidance for how decision makers should navigate these conflicting imperatives to ensure that participants are selected fairly.

Measuring perceived mistreatment across diverse social groups: An evaluation of the Everyday Discrimination Scale.

RATIONALE: Research assessing the health-related consequences of perceived discrimination depends upon high quality measures of perceived discrimination. The Everyday Discrimination Scale (EDS) is among the most frequently used instruments to assess perceptions of discrimination in general, as well as specific types of discrimination (e.g., based on race/ethnicity or age). While numerous studies attest to its validity and reliability for racial/ethnic minority groups, no existing study has examined its psychometric equivalence across gender, age, or socio-economic groups. This study fills this gap. HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesize that because social hierarchies of race/ethnicity, age, gender and class have different histories and are differently organized and institutionalized in contemporary United States, racial/ethnic, age, gender, and education-based groups differ in the types of discrimination they experience and perceive. As a result, the EDS may not be equivalent across these social groups. METHOD: We test this hypothesis by analyzing data from the 2015 US Texas Diversity Study (N=1,049), a telephone survey of English- and Spanish-speaking adults. We examine two forms of the EDS - one focusing on discrimination regardless of attribution and one focusing specifically on discrimination attributed to respondents' race/ethnicity. RESULTS: Multi-group confirmatory factor analyses revealed that neither version of the scale generates estimates of discrimination that can be meaningfully compared across all racial/ethnic, age, gender, and education-based groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our results urge caution when drawing comparisons of perceived discrimination across diverse social groups based on the EDS and point to avenues for future scale development.

Methods for analytic intercategorical intersectionality in quantitative research: Discrimination as a mediator of health inequalities.

RATIONALE: Intersectionality as a theoretical framework has gained prominence in qualitative research on social inequity. Intercategorical quantitative applications have focused primarily on describing health or social inequalities across intersectional groups, coded using cross-classified categories or interaction terms. This descriptive intersectionality omits consideration of the mediating processes (e.g., discrimination) through which intersectional positions impact outcome inequalities, which offer opportunities for intervention. OBJECTIVE: We argue for the importance of a quantitative analytic intersectionality. We identify methodological challenges and potential solutions in structuring studies to allow for both intersectional heterogeneity in outcomes and in the ways that processes such as discrimination may cause these outcomes for those at different intersections. METHOD: To incorporate both mediation and exposure-mediator interaction, we use VanderWeele's three-way decomposition methodology, adapt the interpretation for application to analytic intersectionality studies, and present a step-by-step analytic approach. Using online panel data collected from Canada and the United States in 2016 (N = 2542), we illustrate this approach with a statistical analysis of whether and to what extent observed inequalities in psychological distress across intersections of ethnoracial group and sexual or gender minority (SGM) status may be explained by past-year experiences of day-to-day discrimination, assessed using the Intersectional Discrimination Index (InDI). RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: We describe actual and adjusted intersectional inequalities in psychological distress and decompose them to identify three component effects for each of 11 intersectional comparison groups (e.g., Indigenous SGM), versus the reference intersectional group that experienced the lowest levels of discrimination (white non-SGM). These reflect the expected inequality in outcome: 1) due to membership in the more discriminated-against group, if its members had experienced the same lower levels of discrimination as the reference intersection; 2) due to unequal levels of discrimination; and 3), due to unequal effects of discrimination. We present considerations for use and interpretation of these methods.

The Intersectional Discrimination Index: Development and validation of measures of self-reported enacted and anticipated discrimination for intercategorical analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Although intersectional approaches have gained traction in population health research, quantitative discrimination and health studies have tended to focus on a single axis of discrimination (e.g., racism, homophobia). As few discrimination measures function across multiple social identities or positions, we developed the Intersectional Discrimination Index (InDI) for intercategorical intersectionality research, including measures of Anticipated (InDI-A), Day-to-Day (InDI-D), and Major (InDI-M) discrimination that do not require attribution to particular grounds. METHODS: We conducted a validity and reliability study with 2016 online survey panel data from Canada and the United States (n = 2583). Internal consistency and dimensionality of the InDI-A were evaluated with exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Construct validation included known-groups comparisons, associations with psychological distress, and convergence with existing discrimination measures. Test-retest reliability was examined in a subgroup (n = 150). RESULTS: We found support for use of the InDI-A as a unidimensional scale. As hypothesized, racial and sexual/gender minorities reported higher frequencies of all discrimination types (all p < 0.001), and discrimination varied across intersectional categories. Each InDI component was significantly positively associated with psychological distress after controlling for potential confounders. Frequency scores were strongly positively correlated with existing scales. Intraclass correlation coefficients for test-retest reliability of anticipated, lifetime day-to-day, and lifetime major discrimination ranged from 0.70 to 0.72. CONCLUSIONS: Final InDI measures include the 9-item InDI-A, 9-item InDI-D, and 13-item InDI-M, for which we have found initial evidence of construct validity and reliability. In combination with sociodemographic information, the InDI measures can be used to evaluate the role of discrimination as a mediator of intersectional health inequalities, and to monitor the prevalence and impacts of discrimination in heterogeneous populations.

Soledad social y emocional, factores de riesgo asociados en personas que ejercen la prostitución / No disponible

El estigma asociado al ejercicio de la prostitución y las condiciones en las que se realiza favorece la exclusión de este colectivo que puede interferir en la adecuada satisfacción de sus necesidades emocionales y sociales favoreciendo la aparición del sentimiento de soledad. Este estudio relaciona las condiciones en las que se lleva a cabo la prostitución con los sentimientos de soledad. Se ha encontrado que la muestra presenta condiciones de vida que favorecen la aparición de sentimientos de soledad, los cuales son más altos que la población general. Mejorar los vínculos socioemocionales de este colectivo es necesario para mejorar su salud

Stigma associated with prostitution and conditions under which it is performed promotes social isolation of this group which can interfere with the proper satisfaction of their emotional and social needs favoring the emergence of the feeling of loneliness. This study relates the conditions in which prostitution takes place with feelings of loneliness. It has been found that the sample presents living conditions that favor the development of feelings of loneliness, which are higher than the general population. Improve the emotional and social bonds of this collective are important to improve their health

Criterios básicos para la vigilancia de la salud de los trabajadores: decálogo sobre la vigilancia de la salud en el trabajo / No disponible

No disponible