11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The need for feminist intersectionality in digital health

      , , ,
      The Lancet Digital Health
      Elsevier BV

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references56

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations

            Health systems rely on commercial prediction algorithms to identify and help patients with complex health needs. We show that a widely used algorithm, typical of this industry-wide approach and affecting millions of patients, exhibits significant racial bias: At a given risk score, Black patients are considerably sicker than White patients, as evidenced by signs of uncontrolled illnesses. Remedying this disparity would increase the percentage of Black patients receiving additional help from 17.7 to 46.5%. The bias arises because the algorithm predicts health care costs rather than illness, but unequal access to care means that we spend less money caring for Black patients than for White patients. Thus, despite health care cost appearing to be an effective proxy for health by some measures of predictive accuracy, large racial biases arise. We suggest that the choice of convenient, seemingly effective proxies for ground truth can be an important source of algorithmic bias in many contexts.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Sex and Gender Equity in Research: rationale for the SAGER guidelines and recommended use

              Background Sex and gender differences are often overlooked in research design, study implementation and scientific reporting, as well as in general science communication. This oversight limits the generalizability of research findings and their applicability to clinical practice, in particular for women but also for men. This article describes the rationale for an international set of guidelines to encourage a more systematic approach to the reporting of sex and gender in research across disciplines. Methods A panel of 13 experts representing nine countries developed the guidelines through a series of teleconferences, conference presentations and a 2-day workshop. An internet survey of 716 journal editors, scientists and other members of the international publishing community was conducted as well as a literature search on sex and gender policies in scientific publishing. Results The Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) guidelines are a comprehensive procedure for reporting of sex and gender information in study design, data analyses, results and interpretation of findings. Conclusions The SAGER guidelines are designed primarily to guide authors in preparing their manuscripts, but they are also useful for editors, as gatekeepers of science, to integrate assessment of sex and gender into all manuscripts as an integral part of the editorial process.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                The Lancet Digital Health
                The Lancet Digital Health
                Elsevier BV
                25897500
                August 2021
                August 2021
                : 3
                : 8
                : e526-e533
                Article
                10.1016/S2589-7500(21)00118-7
                34325855
                7524e983-0c46-4cc6-a5b2-cbc5ae053a22
                © 2021

                https://www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/

                http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article