9255 Use of Race and Ethnicity in Endocrine Clinical Practice Guidelines

• DOI: 10.1210/jendso/bvae163.1078
• Publication Date: 2024-10-05T20:29:58Z
• Authors: Danny Segura Torres; Karina Raygoza; Mariano Garcia; Juan Pablo Brito; Marie Elizabeth M...; Maureen Corrigan; Christopher Rolla...; Ruban Dhaliwal; Naykky Maruquel S...

Abstract Disclosure: D. Segura Torres: None. K. Raygoza: None. M. Garcia: None. J.P. Brito: None. M.E. McDonnell: None. M. Corrigan: None. C.R. McCartney: None. R. Dhaliwal: None. N.M. Singh Ospina: None. Clinical practice guidelines (CPG) improve healthcare quality by guiding decision making. Recent trends in CPG development emphasize incorporating race/ethnicity terms and health equity considerations. However, the appropriateness of how race/ethnicity is utilized remains uncertain. Objective This study seeks to evaluate the use of race/ethnicity in published Endocrine Society (ES) CPG and elucidate the context in which race and ethnicity terms are used. Methods: We identified 30 active clinical practice guidelines from ES up to January 2023. Two reviewers independently and in duplicate: a) located statements addressing race/ethnicity using an electronic search with 24 keywords, b) determined the statements' location within guidelines, and c) classified them based on content using frameworks by Cerdena and Gilliam. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. Exclusions were made for statements not addressing race and ethnicity terms in the appropriate context (e.g., “minority” of the panel disagreed), as well as for those in references or duplicates. Results: We reviewed 30 clinical practice guidelines, with 19 of them containing statements related to race or ethnicity. After applying exclusion criteria, we identified a final analytic sample of 114 statements. The majority of these statements were found in the body of the clinical guidelines (79%), followed by the evidence-to-decision framework (14%), and clinical recommendations (7%).The predominant classification were statements in which there was biologization of race/ethnicity 55% (n=63). Discussions on racial/ethnic disparities accounted for 23% (n=26) of the statements, with 31% (n=8) of these including explicit considerations of social context. Additionally, there were descriptions of race-specific treatment or diagnosis/screening in 14% (n=16) and 9% (n=10) of the statements, respectively.Less commonly statements of race/ethnicity reflected the consideration of ancestry as a code for race/ethnicity (n=7, 6%), identified ancestry as a risk factor for disease (n=19, 6%), highlighted racial/ethnic groups as understudied n=6, 5%), normalized findings to the majority group (White centeredness) (n=7, 6%), and other categories (7%). None of the statements employed race/ethnicity terms to emphasize cultural humility or the value of inclusivity in guideline committees. Conclusion: We systematically analyzed how race and ethnicity terms are used in ES CPGs. Our findings align with prior assessments made in non-ES CPG, highlighting the prevalent biologization of race and ethnicity constructs. Addressing this trend and incorporating socio-structural context considerations could bolster the impact of clinical guidelines in promoting health equity. Presentation: 6/1/2024