CHECKLIST FOR REPORTING OF RACE/RACIALIZATION, ETHNICITY, AND CULTURE (REC) DATA
Psychiatric Services has implemented into the submission and review process a checklist for reporting race/racialization, ethnicity, and culture (REC) data (see Editorial and General Policies).
This checklist guides the review process about how the manuscript reports REC factors. The goal of incorporating this checklist into the submissions process is to promote research and systematic reporting of data through a diversity, equity, and inclusion lens, which can guide interventions, strategies, and system changes to eliminate disparities and promote equity in health and health care. This process encourages the inclusion of REC-related factors in submissions when pertinent to the research question and discourages examination of these factors in isolation from others (e.g., gender, socioeconomic class).
Please rate the extent to which your paper addresses the following items from a race/racialization, ethnicity, and culture perspective, using the options provided:
- Not at all
- Mentioned
- Considered/discussed extensively
1. Inclusion and definition of race/racialization, ethnicity, and culture (REC) terms, identifiers, and related constructs
REC-related terms, such as descriptors of individuals, families, and groups, are socially constructed, including the concept of race. Consider whether these terms are explicitly defined in your manuscript and used in context. Disparity-reduction efforts often rely on data assessing social and health indicators and the availability and differential impact of mental health services across populations defined with these terms. Common examples of REC-related terms include descriptions of national origin (e.g., Japanese), regional background (e.g., Western), language (e.g., Spanish), and nativity status (e.g., migrants). Explicit operational definition is important for clarity. For example, terms describing populations may reference national origin (e.g., “Ashkenazi origins included Europe, the Americas, Australia, South Africa…”), method of ascertainment (e.g., “we used the 2020 Census categories”), open-ended self-definition (e.g., “we defined cultural background by participant’s self-report based on an open-ended question”), ancestry-related claim (e.g., “descent as native Western European population”), or other definitions. REC terms may also refer to social, cultural, or systemic constructs, processes, or outcomes, such as racism, implicit bias, oppression, marginalization, minority/minoritized, underrepresentation, structural racism, disparities, acculturative stress, cultural humility, cultural safety and competence, and structural competence.
2. Study aims and design
Consider whether attention is paid to REC factors in research questions and/or study design based on reported background information and literature review. REC-related constructs affect social and structural risk factors of mental illness; health care policies; the organization of health care programs; access to services by individuals, families, or communities; the quality of care delivered; and the resulting outcomes of service use. Further, the impact of REC-related constructs often needs to be considered in intersection with other sociocultural identities and factors, such as gender, sexuality, and socioeconomic status, as well as environmental contexts, including at the neighborhood, urban/rural, regional, national, and/or global levels.
3. Sample considerations
Consider whether attention is paid to REC factors in research questions and/or study design based on reported background information and literature review. REC-related constructs affect social and structural risk factors of mental illness; health care policies; the organization of health care programs; access to services by individuals, families, or communities; the quality of care delivered; and the resulting outcomes of service use. Further, the impact of REC-related constructs often needs to be considered in intersection with other sociocultural identities and factors, such as gender, sexuality, and socioeconomic status, as well as environmental contexts, including at the neighborhood, urban/rural, regional, national, and/or global levels.
4. Issues in communication and interactions between researchers and participants
This item refers to interpersonal communication and interactions during the research, such as participant interviews. The REC (including language) characteristics of interviewers and participants include participant oral language proficiency and the degree of match or concordance and social-power differences between interviewers and participants. These aspects of communication and interaction may affect engagement and participation in the study and the resulting reliability and validity of data collection (e.g., language barriers, interviewer implicit biases, impact of past discrimination on participant engagement and disclosure). Select "not applicable" if the study does not involve interactions between researchers and participants (e.g., archival research, data from death registry or medical records review).
5. Adequacy of measurement instruments and other assessment tools
Determine whether the manuscript considers the appropriateness and applicability of the research instruments/assessment tools for all study participants in terms of their linguistic and psychometric characteristics. This may include reporting the psychometric properties for the various REC-defined populations in the study, including whether population-specific information is available (e.g., reliability, norms, cut-off scores) and whether the cultural validity and semantic and psychometric equivalence of the instruments has been documented in the target population(s). If participants do not have sufficient reading proficiency for a study instrument in its original language, the article can describe the translation methodology employed, its psychometric characteristics, and how its cross-cultural applicability was assessed. Select "not applicable" if the study does not involve the use of instruments/assessment tools or does not include participants from whom data could be collected directly (e.g., death registries, record reviews).
6. Interpretation and implications of results
The extent of the analysis of the REC-related variables and their interpretation depend on their relevance to the research topic, questions, or hypotheses. REC-related factors may be key analytic variables when the research focuses on the relationship between REC-related independent variables and outcome variables (e.g., associations between race/ethnicity and service access) or when dependent variables are REC related (e.g., clinician implicit bias). REC-related factors may also be included in data analysis as effect modifiers (e.g., moderators), interaction terms, mediators, or potential confounders. Qualitative analyses may include REC-related factors as contextual elements. Discussion of results may consider relevant REC-related issues, including implications and next research steps at the individual (micro), programmatic/ institutional (meso), and/or policy/social-structural (macro) levels to reduce health disparities and provide more equitable care.
7. Limitations
Consider whether discussion of study limitations includes REC-related issues. Some examples: shortcomings in the use and definition of REC terms and constructs; the representativeness of the sample with respect to REC characteristics; deficits in addressing REC-related factors that may affect the internal or external validity, credibility, or transferability of the findings; and the impact of possible researcher biases on any aspect of the study, including data interpretation.
8. General comments and feedback
Feedback on the REC checklist (e.g., might it be useful in your future work? in what ways could it be improved?) is welcome at [email protected](subject: REC checklist).