Racial discrimination among women seeking breast cancer care

Introduction

Despite advances in prevention, early detection, and treatment, racial inequities in breast cancer persist. Black women experience a 40% higher breast cancer-specific mortality than White women1,2. The reasons for this inequity are complex, involving tumor characteristics, social determinants of health, and treatment-related factors3. Among all the factors, discrimination can play an insidious role because it has the potential to corrode trust and negatively impact decision making, thereby affecting cancer outcomes4. In addition, discrimination may mediate genomic, epigenetic, and physiologic alterations and impact access, receipt, completion, and tolerability of treatment, all of which may contribute to disparities in breast cancer outcomes5,6. Compelling research in recent years has clearly demonstrated the ongoing damage of structural, cultural and individual-level racism present across multiple facets of the healthcare system, including societal, institutional, and clinical treatment settings7,8,9.

Previous studies have documented higher rates of perceived discrimination among Black women diagnosed with breast cancer compared to White women10,11. However, details on the setting and type of discrimination are lacking, with limited information available on the experiences among those treated for cancer. Our research team administered a survey to a racially and ethnically diverse population of women who had undergone treatment for breast cancer in New York and Boston. As part of this study, we sought to understand experiences of discrimination within and outside of healthcare settings. We also examined how experiences with discrimination may impact treatment receipt.

Methods

Study overview and population

We invited adult women diagnosed with a history of stage I–III breast cancer during 2013–2017 to participate in a one-time interviewer-administered survey. Interviews were conducted during 2018–2020. The survey instrument included questions on demographics (including self-reported race and ethnicity), treatment decisions, treatment receipt, breast cancer knowledge, experiences with discrimination, and potential barriers to treatment receipt. We recruited a diverse population of non-Hispanic White (hereafter, White), non-Hispanic Black (hereafter, Black), and Hispanic participants. Participants had to understand and speak English or Spanish and had to receive some or all of their cancer care (at least 3 visits) at a participating center (Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston Medical Center [both in Boston, MA] or Columbia University Irving Medical Center [New York, NY]). The Institutional Review Board of each participating center approved the study (protocol 17-612), the study conformed to the standards set forth in the Declaration of Helsinki, and all participants gave informed consent. Additional details of the study methodology have been previously published12,13.

Survey instrument

The survey used for this analysis included questions about discrimination derived from the validated Everyday Discrimination Scale14,15,16. To examine experiences in the health care setting, participants were asked to consider the same questions but instead, as related to their experiences within the health care setting. For all questions, participants characterized their experiences as occurring either “never,” “rarely,” “sometimes,” “often,” or “always.” For each component of potential adjuvant treatment, participants were asked about whether it was recommended to them and if they initiated it, including radiation, chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, and trastuzumab.

Statistical analysis

First, we compared patient characteristics by race and ethnicity using Chi square and Fisher’s exact tests. We then calculated the summary experience of discrimination scores separately for discrimination in everyday life and in the health care setting by summing responses to each item (scored 1 to 5 for ‘never’ to ‘always’). Within each race and ethnicity group, differences in discrimination scores between the everyday setting and the healthcare setting were compared through paired-sample t-tests. For both the everyday setting and the health care setting, discrimination scores were compared across race and ethnicity groups through one-factor analysis of variance followed by Tukey’s pairwise comparisons. Responses to individual items from the discrimination scales were dichotomized as “never/rarely” and “sometimes/often/always” and Chi-square testing was used to compare the percent responding ‘sometimes/often/always’ across race and ethnicity groups. Because non-response to questions was infrequent (n = 3 participants left some discrimination questions blank), these participants were excluded from the analysis. To test for reliability of the two discrimination measures, we performed Cronbach’s alpha testing for each discrimination scale. Finally, we used Chi-square testing to evaluate univariate associations of responses to the discrimination scales and treatment receipt. Of note, because race itself wasn’t associated with treatment receipt in prior analyses12 we focused on discrimination for these potential associations.

Results

Sociodemographics

Overall, 296 women, 178 (60%) White, 76 (26%) Black, 42 (14%) Hispanic, completed interviews. Details on response rates have been published previously12. Table 1 displays summary patient characteristics. Most had hormone receptor-positive breast cancer and stage 0-III disease at diagnosis. Black and Hispanic (vs. White) women reported lower educational attainment, and Black women were younger than White women at the time of interview.

Table 1 Participant characteristics (N, %)
Full size table

Summary scores

Table 2 shows the summary scores for everyday and heathcare settings by race and ethnicity. Within each race and ethnicity group, discrimination summary scores were significantly lower in the healthcare setting compared with everyday life (paired sample t-tests, p < 0.001 for White vs. Hispanic women, p < 0.002 for White vs. Black women). In the everyday life setting, discrimination scores were higher for Black (mean 20, range 10–43) compared to White women (mean 16 range 10–33; p < 0.001) and Hispanic women (mean 16 range 10–33; p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in mean everyday discrimination score for Hispanic vs. White women (p = 0.996). In the health care setting, mean discrimination scores for Black women (mean 15, range 10–44) were significantly higher than those for White women (mean 13, range 10–25, p = 0.008) but not significantly higher than Hispanic women (mean 13 range 10–21, p = 0.056). There were no significant differences in mean discrimination scores for Hispanic vs. White women in the healthcare setting (p = 0.985).

Table 2 Summary scores of discrimination surveys by race and ethnicity
Full size table

Everyday life

Individual survey question responses regarding discrimination in everyday life experiences and within the health care setting are displayed in Tables 3, 4, respectively. When compared to White women, Black women experienced significantly more discrimination in many areas. In the everyday setting, Black women experienced significantly more discrimination on 9 of the 10 items from the instrument. Further, Black women experienced significantly more discrimination than Hispanic women for 7 of the 10 items. In contrast, Hispanic women experienced significantly higher discrimination in the everyday setting than White women on only 1 of the 10 items from the instrument (‘being threatened/harassed’).

Table 3 Responses for sometimes/often/always by race and ethnicity in the everyday setting
Full size table
Table 4 Responding sometimes/often/always by race and ethnicity in a Health care Setting
Full size table

Health care setting

With regard to the health care setting, Black women still experienced more discrimination than White women on 6 of the 9 items from the instrument (‘treated with less courtesy’, ‘treated with less respect’, ‘people act as if they think you are not smart’, ‘people act as if they are afraid of you’, ‘people act as if they think you are dishonest’, and ‘people ignore you or act as if you are not there’). In the health care setting, Hispanic women reported higher discrimination than White women on only 1 item (‘treated with less courtesy’), and lower discrimination than White women on 1 item (‘people act as if they are better than you’). Cronbach coefficients for the Everyday Discrimination scale and the discrimination within health care scales were 0.89 and 0.87, respectively, indicating a high degree of reliability.

Univariate analysis

In univariate analyses of discrimination item responses and treatment receipt (Table 5), only one item in the everyday discrimination scale (people act as if they think you are dishonest) was significantly associated with treatment; participants reporting this item as sometimes/often/always being less likely to receive recommended treatments. With regard to responses to the discrimination within health care measures, responses of sometimes/often/always for four items (treated with less courtesy, treated with less respect, people act as if you are not smart, people act as if they think you are dishonest) were significantly associated with less treatment receipt (Table 5).

Table 5 Item responses for discrimination scales and associations with treatment receipt
Full size table

Discussion

Within this cross-sectional survey of diverse breast cancer survivors, we report the stark difference in experiences of discrimination between NH White, Black, and Hispanic women treated for breast cancer in everyday life and the health care setting. To our knowledge, this is the first study to both confirm that Black women report discrimination significantly more often than other women and to detail the setting and situation where the discrimination is felt in the context of a cancer diagnosis. Our measures demonstrated a high degree of reliability for the experiences reported within and outside of health care. And, despite small sample sizes for those declining at least one component of cancer-directed therapy, we observed several significant associations for discrimination and treatment receipt. Our results add to the growing body of literature aimed at better understanding the prevalence and potential impact of discrimination, particularly in the health care, and more specifically, cancer care, setting.

Multiple publications have previously demonstrated strong evidence for the impact of structural racism on health, not only when systemic racism occurs within health care but also because of the substantial impact of factors such as neighborhood segregation and public policy5,6,7,8. Less attention has been paid to the individual day-to-day experiences for patients with cancer and how this may contribute to health outcomes. Other investigators, such as Sutton et al., have reported a greater incidence of Black women experiencing discrimination in the health care setting compared to White women (47% vs 16% respectively) and a high incidence of lifetime discrimination (82% of NH Black women vs 19% of NH White women)10,11. However, these previous reports have included women who are largely privately insured and college-educated, or participants in a single healthcare system10,11. Our participants were less likely to have private insurance (63%) or a college degree (33.6%), and they were treated at three separate healthcare systems in two states. Thus, our findings may be more representative of the demographics for Black women with breast cancer.

Our data demonstrate that overall rates of self-reported discrimination in everyday life were significantly higher than in the health care setting and self-reported discrimination among Black women was significantly higher than white women in both everyday and health care settings. Everyday discrimination is a serious concern underscoring challenges that women of color experience in their day-to-day lives. Emerging research on cancer inequities has begun to rigorously investigate the multiple consequences of racism, discrimination, and the chronic stress experienced by the most vulnerable populations. The burgeoning scientific study of living amongst these racist and discriminatory conditions chronically can lead to worse health outcomes is a rapidly growing and important field of research. Discrimination has been associated with lower quality of life among breast cancer survivors11. In addition, individual discrimination is associated with physiologic, behavioral and health care use responses that collectively adversely impact health outcomes9. Downstream negative consequences include but are not limited to medical mistrust, poor communication, delayed access to care, chronic inflammation, and allostatic load or weathering6,9,17. As our societal awareness and understanding of these challenges expand, future interventions to alleviate, reverse and mitigate these cancer inequities is critical.

Our results also identify specific experiences of Black patients, which can be addressed with thoughtful interventions and changes in healthcare practices or protocols. For example, rates of reporting feeling ignored in the health care setting were twice as high for Black women than Hispanic women and four times higher than White women. In addition, Black women had higher rates of reporting being treated with less courtesy and less respect. These results can guide intentional changes within the health care setting to address these perceptions. Reinforcement of respect and courtesy can be a crucial first step and a collective priority.

Limitations of the study include the small sample sizes for some analyses and the focus on care in three systems only. Despite extensive efforts to recruit Hispanic women, only 5 enrolled patients in this study were Spanish-speaking, limiting an assessment of Hispanic women in the experience in discrimination. The study adapted the discrimination scale, which has not been validated in the healthcare setting. Further, patients who chose to participate in the study may be favorably predisposed to the healthcare system because they had engaged in cancer care at the participating center, potentially skewing the results.

Overall, this study contributes to the foundational work necessary to understand and alleviate discrimination experienced by Black women receiving treatment for breast cancer. An awareness of the frequency and scope of discrimination is an essential step to remedying the problem. Immediate efforts can focus on identifying and mitigating factors contributing to specific experiences of discrimination in the healthcare setting, including Black women feeling unseen and unheard, feeling treated with less courtesy and respect, and feeling as though people think they are dishonest or not smart.

Related Articles

Spatial evolution of traditional waterside settlements south of the Yangtze River and the distribution of settlement heritage: evidence from the Nanxi River Basin

The study of ancient settlements in the traditional waterside towns of Jiangnan is an important part of scientific research on architectural heritage. This study examines ancient settlements in the Nanxi River Basin during various historical periods, such as the Neolithic Age, Eastern Han Dynasty, Tang-Five Dynasty, Song-Yuan Dynasty, Ming Dynasty, and Qing Dynasty. It investigates their temporal and spatial evolution and the factors that influence their distribution, with a particular focus on the role of intangible cultural heritage. This study focuses on the relationship between the spatial evolution of traditional waterside settlements in the Nanxi River Basin and the distribution of intangible heritage and analyzes the driving factors of their development. How settlements changed over time and space was examined with geographic information systems (GIS) software and by using kernel density, elliptical variance, and spatial autocorrelation methods on 204 ancient settlement points. This study also employs buffer and data overlay methods to analyze the factors that affect settlement distribution by elevation, slope, water system distance, and distance to intangible cultural heritage points. The study reveals the following. (1) During the Ming and Qing Dynasties, clans, culture, and the economy drove the expansion of early settlements, which relied on water systems and flat terrain, to form a multicenter distribution. (2) The settlement distribution in the Nanxi River Basin has undergone a transformation from single-point distribution to multipoint aggregation and divergence during the evolution from the Neolithic Age to the Qing Dynasty. The overall center of gravity of the settlements shifts from south to north and east, and the overall distribution of the settlements is in a state of aggregation. (3) The spatial and temporal evolution of settlements is jointly influenced by the natural environment and cultural factors. The natural environment determines the spatial distribution of early settlements, while cultural factors promote the evolution and development of the settlement space. This study further clarifies the key role of intangible cultural heritage in the formation and development of settlements and provides a reference framework for future heritage protection policies.

Targeting of TAMs: can we be more clever than cancer cells?

With increasing incidence and geography, cancer is one of the leading causes of death, reduced quality of life and disability worldwide. Principal progress in the development of new anticancer therapies, in improving the efficiency of immunotherapeutic tools, and in the personification of conventional therapies needs to consider cancer-specific and patient-specific programming of innate immunity. Intratumoral TAMs and their precursors, resident macrophages and monocytes, are principal regulators of tumor progression and therapy resistance. Our review summarizes the accumulated evidence for the subpopulations of TAMs and their increasing number of biomarkers, indicating their predictive value for the clinical parameters of carcinogenesis and therapy resistance, with a focus on solid cancers of non-infectious etiology. We present the state-of-the-art knowledge about the tumor-supporting functions of TAMs at all stages of tumor progression and highlight biomarkers, recently identified by single-cell and spatial analytical methods, that discriminate between tumor-promoting and tumor-inhibiting TAMs, where both subtypes express a combination of prototype M1 and M2 genes. Our review focuses on novel mechanisms involved in the crosstalk among epigenetic, signaling, transcriptional and metabolic pathways in TAMs. Particular attention has been given to the recently identified link between cancer cell metabolism and the epigenetic programming of TAMs by histone lactylation, which can be responsible for the unlimited protumoral programming of TAMs. Finally, we explain how TAMs interfere with currently used anticancer therapeutics and summarize the most advanced data from clinical trials, which we divide into four categories: inhibition of TAM survival and differentiation, inhibition of monocyte/TAM recruitment into tumors, functional reprogramming of TAMs, and genetic enhancement of macrophages.

Trust in scientists and their role in society across 68 countries

Science is crucial for evidence-based decision-making. Public trust in scientists can help decision makers act on the basis of the best available evidence, especially during crises. However, in recent years the epistemic authority of science has been challenged, causing concerns about low public trust in scientists. We interrogated these concerns with a preregistered 68-country survey of 71,922 respondents and found that in most countries, most people trust scientists and agree that scientists should engage more in society and policymaking. We found variations between and within countries, which we explain with individual- and country-level variables, including political orientation. While there is no widespread lack of trust in scientists, we cannot discount the concern that lack of trust in scientists by even a small minority may affect considerations of scientific evidence in policymaking. These findings have implications for scientists and policymakers seeking to maintain and increase trust in scientists.

The spatial coupling and its influencing mechanism between rural human-habitat heritage and key rural tourism villages in China

Exploring the influencing factors and its influencing mechanism of the spatial coupling between rural human-habitat heritage (RHH) and key rural tourism villages (RTV) at county scale from the perspective of space can expand the theoretical research on the spatial coupling mechanism between RHH and RTV, and further provide theoretical reference and data support for the coordinated development and high-quality development of RHH and RTV in China. At the same time, previous studies have failed to systematically analyze the influencing factors and influencing mechanisms of the spatial coupling between RHH and RTV at the county scale, which restricted decision makers from formulating coordinated development measures between RHH and RTV at the macro level. In this study, bivariate spatial autocorrelation model and spatial coupling coordination model were used to quantitatively analyze the spatial coupling level between RHH and RTV at the county scale in China. Then, the linear regression (OLS) model, geographically weighted regression (GWR) model, and optimal parameter GeoDetector (OPGD) model were integrated to systematically analyze the linear influencing, spatial heterogeneity effect and interactive effect of natural environment and socioeconomic factors on the spatial coupling level between RHH and RTV in China, and explore the interactive influencing mechanism. The results show that the spatial coupling level of RHH and RTV in China show a significant east-west differentiation. There were 2024, 473, 293, 55 and 6 areas of severe, moderate, mild, basic and moderate coordination between RHH and RTV, respectively. Among them, severe and moderate discoordination areas are mainly distributed in Northeast China, arid and semi-arid areas in Western China, plateau areas in Southwest China, densely populated urban agglomerations and plains agricultural areas in the Middle East China. Mild discoordination areas and basic and moderate coordination areas are mainly located in transition zones in mountainous and plain areas, economically developed mountainous and hilly counties along the southeastern coast, and coastal tourist cities. Economic and population factors are the fundamental factors that affect the spatial coupling between RHH and RTV. Rural tourism facilities and rural public service facilities are important external driving forces for the coupling development of RHH and RTV, and Sociocultural environment factors are the important internal driving forces. Different surface forms, different climate conditions and different ecological environment conditions can form different natural textures and spatial organizations. Suitable climate conditions, sufficient water sources and ecological environment conditions can form more suitable rural settlement construction conditions and production and living conditions, and ultimately affect the protection and activation of rural human settlement heritage and the development and layout of key tourist villages. The spatial coupling relationship between RHH and RTV is the result of the complex interaction between the natural directivity law caused by natural environmental factors and the humanistic directivity law caused by human social and economic activities.

Iron homeostasis and ferroptosis in muscle diseases and disorders: mechanisms and therapeutic prospects

The muscular system plays a critical role in the human body by governing skeletal movement, cardiovascular function, and the activities of digestive organs. Additionally, muscle tissues serve an endocrine function by secreting myogenic cytokines, thereby regulating metabolism throughout the entire body. Maintaining muscle function requires iron homeostasis. Recent studies suggest that disruptions in iron metabolism and ferroptosis, a form of iron-dependent cell death, are essential contributors to the progression of a wide range of muscle diseases and disorders, including sarcopenia, cardiomyopathy, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Thus, a comprehensive overview of the mechanisms regulating iron metabolism and ferroptosis in these conditions is crucial for identifying potential therapeutic targets and developing new strategies for disease treatment and/or prevention. This review aims to summarize recent advances in understanding the molecular mechanisms underlying ferroptosis in the context of muscle injury, as well as associated muscle diseases and disorders. Moreover, we discuss potential targets within the ferroptosis pathway and possible strategies for managing muscle disorders. Finally, we shed new light on current limitations and future prospects for therapeutic interventions targeting ferroptosis.

Responses

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *