Diversity in Medicine

More than half a million individuals are without housing (NWH) on any given night in the United States, as estimated by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. ¹ Lack of hygiene, increased risk of infection and infestation due to living conditions, and barriers to health care put these individuals at increased risk for disease. ² Skin disease, including fungal infection and acne, are within the top 10 most prevalent diseases worldwide and can cause major psychologic impairment, yet dermatologic concerns and clinical outcomes in NWH patients have not been well characterized. ^2-5 Further, because this vulnerable demographic tends to be underinsured, they frequently present to the emergency department (ED) for management of disease. ^1,6 Survey of common concerns in NWH patients is of utility to consulting dermatologists and nondermatologist providers in the ED, who can familiarize themselves with management of diseases they are more likely to encounter. Few studies examine dermatologic conditions in the ED, and a thorough literature review indicates none have included homelessness as a variable. ^6,7 Additionally, comparison with a matched control group of patients with housing (WH) is limited. ^5,8 We present one of the largest comparisons of cutaneous disease in NWH vs WH patients in a single hospital system to elucidate the types of cutaneous disease that motivate patients to seek care, the location of skin disease, and differences in clinical care.

Methods

A retrospective medical record review of patients seen for an inclusive list of dermatologic diagnoses in the ED or while admitted at University Medical Center New Orleans, Louisiana (UMC), between January 1, 2018, and April 21, 2020, was conducted. This study was qualified as exempt from the institutional review board by Louisiana State University because it proposed zero risk to the patients and remained completely anonymous. Eight hundred forty-two total medical records were reviewed (NWH, 421; WH, 421)(Table 1). Patients with housing were matched based on self-identified race and ethnicity, sex, and age. Disease categories were constructed based on fundamental pathophysiology adapted from Dermatology⁹: infectious, noninfectious inflammatory, neoplasm, trauma and wounds, drug-related eruptions, vascular, pruritic, pigmented, bullous, neuropsychiatric, and other. Other included unspecified eruptions as well as miscellaneous lesions such as calluses. The current chief concern, anatomic location, and configuration were recorded, as well as biopsied lesions and outpatient referrals or inpatient consultations to dermatology or other specialties, including wound care, infectious disease, podiatry, and surgery. χ² analysis was used to analyze significance of cutaneous categories, body location, and referrals. Groups smaller than 5 defaulted to the Fisher exact test.

Results

The total diagnoses (including both chief concerns and secondary diagnoses) are shown in Table 2. Chief concerns were more frequently cutaneous or dermatologic for WH (NWH, 209; WH, 307; P<.001). In both groups, cutaneous infectious etiologies were more likely to be a patient’s presenting chief concern (58% NWH, P=.002; 42% WH, P<.001). Noninfectious inflammatory etiologies and pigmented lesions were more likely to be secondary diagnoses with an unrelated noncutaneous concern; noninfectious inflammatory etiologies were only 16% of the total cutaneous chief concerns (11% NWH, P=.04; 20% WH, P=.03), and no pigmented lesions were chief concerns.

Infection was the most common chief concern, though NWH patients presented with significantly more infectious concerns (NWH, 212; WH, 150; P<.001), particularly infestations (NWH, 33; WH, 8; P<.001) and bacterial etiologies (NWH, 127; WH, 100; P=.04). The majority of bacterial etiologies were either an abscess or cellulitis (NWH, 106; WH, 83), though infected chronic wounds were categorized as bacterial infection when treated definitively as such (eg, in the case of sacral ulcers causing osteomyelitis)(NWH, 21; WH, 17). Of note, infectious etiology was associated with intravenous drug use (IVDU) in both NWH and WH patients. Of 184 NWH who reported IVDU, 127 had an infectious diagnosis (P<.001). Similarly, 43 of 56 total WH patients who reported IVDU had an infectious diagnosis (P<.001). Infestation (within the infectious category) included scabies (NWH, 20; WH, 3) and insect or arthropod bites (NWH, 12; WH, 5). Two NWH patients also presented with swelling of the lower extremities and were subsequently diagnosed with maggot infestations. Fungal and viral etiologies were not significantly increased in either group; however, NWH did have a higher incidence of tinea pedis (NWH, 14; WH, 4; P=.03).

More neoplasms (NWH, 6; WH, 16; P=.03), noninfectious inflammatory eruptions (NWH, 48; WH, 85; P<.001), and cutaneous drug eruptions (NWH, 5; WH, 27; P<.001) were reported in WH patients. There was no significant difference in benign vs malignant neoplastic processes between groups. More noninfectious inflammatory eruptions in WH were specifically driven by a markedly increased incidence of follicular (NWH, 9; WH, 29; P<.001) and urticarial/erythematous (NWH, 3; WH, 13; P=.02) lesions. Follicular etiologies included acne (NWH, 1; WH, 6; P=.12), folliculitis (NWH, 5; WH, 2; P=.45), hidradenitis suppurativa (NWH, 2; WH, 11; P=.02), and pilonidal and sebaceous cysts (NWH, 1; WH, 10; P=.01). Allergic urticaria dominated the urticarial/erythematous category (NWH, 3; WH, 11; P=.06), though there were 2 WH presentations of diffuse erythema and skin peeling.

Another substantial proportion of cutaneous etiologies were due to trauma or chronic wounds. Significantly more traumatic injuries presented in NWH patients vs WH patients (36 vs 31; P=.04). Trauma included human or dog bites (NWH, 5; WH, 4), sunburns (NWH, 3; WH, 0), other burns (NWH, 11; WH, 13), abrasions and lacerations (NWH, 16; WH, 3; P=.004), and foreign bodies (NWH, 1; WH, 1). Wounds consisted of chronic wounds such as those due to diabetes mellitus (foot ulcers) or immobility (sacral ulcers); numbers were similar between groups.

Looking at location, NWH patients had more pathology on the feet (NWH, 62; WH, 39; P=.02), whereas WH patients had more disseminated multiregional concerns (NWH, 55; WH, 75; P=.05). No one body location was notably more likely to warrant a chief concern.

For clinical outcomes, more WH patients received a consultation of any kind (NWH, 171; WH, 217; P<.001), consultation to dermatology (NWH, 49; WH, 87; P<.001), and consultation to surgery (NWH, 64; WH, 110; P<.001)(Table 3 and Figure). More outpatient referrals to dermatology were made for WH patients (NWH, 61; WH, 82; P=.05). Notably, NWH patients presented for 80% fewer hospital follow-up appointments (NWH, 11; WH, 55; P<.001). It is essential to note that these findings were not affected by self-reported race or ethnicity. Results remained significant when broken into cohorts consisting of patients with and without skin of color.

Comment

Cutaneous Concerns in NWH Patients—Although cutaneous disease has been reported to disproportionately affect NWH patients,¹⁰ in our cohort, NWH patients had fewer cutaneous chief concerns than WH patients. However, without comparing with all patients entering the ED at UMC, we cannot make a statement on this claim. We do present a few reasons why NWH patients do not have more cutaneous concerns. First, they may wait to present with cutaneous disease until it becomes more severe (eg, until chronic wounds have progressed to infections). Second, as discussed in depth by Hollestein and Nijsten,³ dermatologic disease may be a major contributor to the overall count of disability-adjusted life years but may play a minor role in individual disability. Therefore, skin disease often is considered less important on an individual basis, despite substantial psychosocial burden, leading to further stigmatization of this vulnerable population and discouraged care-seeking behavior, particularly for noninfectious inflammatory eruptions, which were notably more present in WH individuals. Third, fewer dermatologic lesions were reported on NWH patients, which may explain why all 3 WH pigmented lesions were diagnosed after presentation with a noncutaneous concern (eg, headache, anemia, nausea).

Infectious Cutaneous Diagnoses—The increased presentation of infectious etiologies, especially bacterial, is linked to the increased numbers of IVDUs reported in NWH individuals as well as increased exposure and decreased access to basic hygienic supplies. Intravenous drug use acted as an effect modifier of infectious etiology diagnoses, playing a major role in both NWH and WH cohorts. Although Black and Hispanic individuals as well as individuals with low socioeconomic status have increased proportions of skin cancer, there are inadequate data on the prevalence in NWH individuals.⁴ We found no increase in malignant dermatologic processes in NWH individuals; however, this may be secondary to inadequate screening with a total body skin examination.

Clinical Workup of NWH Patients—Because most NWH individuals present to the ED to receive care, their care compared with WH patients should be considered. In this cohort, WH patients received a less extensive clinical workup. They received almost half as many dermatologic consultations and fewer outpatient referrals to dermatology. Major communication barriers may affect NWH presentation to follow-up, which was drastically lower than WH individuals, as scheduling typically occurs well after discharge from the ED or inpatient unit. We suggest a few alterations to improve dermatologic care for NWH individuals:

• Consider inpatient consultation for serious dermatologic conditions—even if chronic—to improve disease control, considering that many barriers inhibit follow-up in clinic.

• Involve outreach teams, such as the Assertive Community Treatment teams, that assist individuals by delivering medicine for psychiatric disorders, conducting total-body skin examinations, assisting with wound care, providing basic skin barrier creams or medicaments, and carrying information regarding outpatient follow-up.

• Educate ED providers on the most common skin concerns, especially those that fall within the noninfectious inflammatory category, such as hidradenitis suppurativa, which could easily be misdiagnosed as an abscess.

Future Directions—Owing to limitations of a retrospective cohort study, we present several opportunities for further research on this vulnerable population. The severity of disease, especially infectious etiologies, should be graded to determine if NWH patients truly present later in the disease course. The duration and quality of housing for NWH patients could be categorized based on living conditions (eg, on the street vs in a shelter). Although the findings of our NWH cohort presenting to the ED at UMC provide helpful insight into dermatologic disease, these findings may be disparate from those conducted at other locations in the United States. University Medical Center provides care to mostly subsidized insurance plans in a racially diverse community. Improved outcomes for the NWH individuals living in New Orleans start with obtaining a greater understanding of their diseases and where disparities exist that can be bridged with better care.

Acknowledgment—The dataset generated during this study and used for analysis is not publicly available to protect public health information but is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

More than half a million individuals are without housing (NWH) on any given night in the United States, as estimated by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. ¹ Lack of hygiene, increased risk of infection and infestation due to living conditions, and barriers to health care put these individuals at increased risk for disease. ² Skin disease, including fungal infection and acne, are within the top 10 most prevalent diseases worldwide and can cause major psychologic impairment, yet dermatologic concerns and clinical outcomes in NWH patients have not been well characterized. ^2-5 Further, because this vulnerable demographic tends to be underinsured, they frequently present to the emergency department (ED) for management of disease. ^1,6 Survey of common concerns in NWH patients is of utility to consulting dermatologists and nondermatologist providers in the ED, who can familiarize themselves with management of diseases they are more likely to encounter. Few studies examine dermatologic conditions in the ED, and a thorough literature review indicates none have included homelessness as a variable. ^6,7 Additionally, comparison with a matched control group of patients with housing (WH) is limited. ^5,8 We present one of the largest comparisons of cutaneous disease in NWH vs WH patients in a single hospital system to elucidate the types of cutaneous disease that motivate patients to seek care, the location of skin disease, and differences in clinical care.

Methods

A retrospective medical record review of patients seen for an inclusive list of dermatologic diagnoses in the ED or while admitted at University Medical Center New Orleans, Louisiana (UMC), between January 1, 2018, and April 21, 2020, was conducted. This study was qualified as exempt from the institutional review board by Louisiana State University because it proposed zero risk to the patients and remained completely anonymous. Eight hundred forty-two total medical records were reviewed (NWH, 421; WH, 421)(Table 1). Patients with housing were matched based on self-identified race and ethnicity, sex, and age. Disease categories were constructed based on fundamental pathophysiology adapted from Dermatology⁹: infectious, noninfectious inflammatory, neoplasm, trauma and wounds, drug-related eruptions, vascular, pruritic, pigmented, bullous, neuropsychiatric, and other. Other included unspecified eruptions as well as miscellaneous lesions such as calluses. The current chief concern, anatomic location, and configuration were recorded, as well as biopsied lesions and outpatient referrals or inpatient consultations to dermatology or other specialties, including wound care, infectious disease, podiatry, and surgery. χ² analysis was used to analyze significance of cutaneous categories, body location, and referrals. Groups smaller than 5 defaulted to the Fisher exact test.

Results

The total diagnoses (including both chief concerns and secondary diagnoses) are shown in Table 2. Chief concerns were more frequently cutaneous or dermatologic for WH (NWH, 209; WH, 307; P<.001). In both groups, cutaneous infectious etiologies were more likely to be a patient’s presenting chief concern (58% NWH, P=.002; 42% WH, P<.001). Noninfectious inflammatory etiologies and pigmented lesions were more likely to be secondary diagnoses with an unrelated noncutaneous concern; noninfectious inflammatory etiologies were only 16% of the total cutaneous chief concerns (11% NWH, P=.04; 20% WH, P=.03), and no pigmented lesions were chief concerns.

Infection was the most common chief concern, though NWH patients presented with significantly more infectious concerns (NWH, 212; WH, 150; P<.001), particularly infestations (NWH, 33; WH, 8; P<.001) and bacterial etiologies (NWH, 127; WH, 100; P=.04). The majority of bacterial etiologies were either an abscess or cellulitis (NWH, 106; WH, 83), though infected chronic wounds were categorized as bacterial infection when treated definitively as such (eg, in the case of sacral ulcers causing osteomyelitis)(NWH, 21; WH, 17). Of note, infectious etiology was associated with intravenous drug use (IVDU) in both NWH and WH patients. Of 184 NWH who reported IVDU, 127 had an infectious diagnosis (P<.001). Similarly, 43 of 56 total WH patients who reported IVDU had an infectious diagnosis (P<.001). Infestation (within the infectious category) included scabies (NWH, 20; WH, 3) and insect or arthropod bites (NWH, 12; WH, 5). Two NWH patients also presented with swelling of the lower extremities and were subsequently diagnosed with maggot infestations. Fungal and viral etiologies were not significantly increased in either group; however, NWH did have a higher incidence of tinea pedis (NWH, 14; WH, 4; P=.03).

More neoplasms (NWH, 6; WH, 16; P=.03), noninfectious inflammatory eruptions (NWH, 48; WH, 85; P<.001), and cutaneous drug eruptions (NWH, 5; WH, 27; P<.001) were reported in WH patients. There was no significant difference in benign vs malignant neoplastic processes between groups. More noninfectious inflammatory eruptions in WH were specifically driven by a markedly increased incidence of follicular (NWH, 9; WH, 29; P<.001) and urticarial/erythematous (NWH, 3; WH, 13; P=.02) lesions. Follicular etiologies included acne (NWH, 1; WH, 6; P=.12), folliculitis (NWH, 5; WH, 2; P=.45), hidradenitis suppurativa (NWH, 2; WH, 11; P=.02), and pilonidal and sebaceous cysts (NWH, 1; WH, 10; P=.01). Allergic urticaria dominated the urticarial/erythematous category (NWH, 3; WH, 11; P=.06), though there were 2 WH presentations of diffuse erythema and skin peeling.

Another substantial proportion of cutaneous etiologies were due to trauma or chronic wounds. Significantly more traumatic injuries presented in NWH patients vs WH patients (36 vs 31; P=.04). Trauma included human or dog bites (NWH, 5; WH, 4), sunburns (NWH, 3; WH, 0), other burns (NWH, 11; WH, 13), abrasions and lacerations (NWH, 16; WH, 3; P=.004), and foreign bodies (NWH, 1; WH, 1). Wounds consisted of chronic wounds such as those due to diabetes mellitus (foot ulcers) or immobility (sacral ulcers); numbers were similar between groups.

Looking at location, NWH patients had more pathology on the feet (NWH, 62; WH, 39; P=.02), whereas WH patients had more disseminated multiregional concerns (NWH, 55; WH, 75; P=.05). No one body location was notably more likely to warrant a chief concern.

For clinical outcomes, more WH patients received a consultation of any kind (NWH, 171; WH, 217; P<.001), consultation to dermatology (NWH, 49; WH, 87; P<.001), and consultation to surgery (NWH, 64; WH, 110; P<.001)(Table 3 and Figure). More outpatient referrals to dermatology were made for WH patients (NWH, 61; WH, 82; P=.05). Notably, NWH patients presented for 80% fewer hospital follow-up appointments (NWH, 11; WH, 55; P<.001). It is essential to note that these findings were not affected by self-reported race or ethnicity. Results remained significant when broken into cohorts consisting of patients with and without skin of color.

Comment

Cutaneous Concerns in NWH Patients—Although cutaneous disease has been reported to disproportionately affect NWH patients,¹⁰ in our cohort, NWH patients had fewer cutaneous chief concerns than WH patients. However, without comparing with all patients entering the ED at UMC, we cannot make a statement on this claim. We do present a few reasons why NWH patients do not have more cutaneous concerns. First, they may wait to present with cutaneous disease until it becomes more severe (eg, until chronic wounds have progressed to infections). Second, as discussed in depth by Hollestein and Nijsten,³ dermatologic disease may be a major contributor to the overall count of disability-adjusted life years but may play a minor role in individual disability. Therefore, skin disease often is considered less important on an individual basis, despite substantial psychosocial burden, leading to further stigmatization of this vulnerable population and discouraged care-seeking behavior, particularly for noninfectious inflammatory eruptions, which were notably more present in WH individuals. Third, fewer dermatologic lesions were reported on NWH patients, which may explain why all 3 WH pigmented lesions were diagnosed after presentation with a noncutaneous concern (eg, headache, anemia, nausea).

Infectious Cutaneous Diagnoses—The increased presentation of infectious etiologies, especially bacterial, is linked to the increased numbers of IVDUs reported in NWH individuals as well as increased exposure and decreased access to basic hygienic supplies. Intravenous drug use acted as an effect modifier of infectious etiology diagnoses, playing a major role in both NWH and WH cohorts. Although Black and Hispanic individuals as well as individuals with low socioeconomic status have increased proportions of skin cancer, there are inadequate data on the prevalence in NWH individuals.⁴ We found no increase in malignant dermatologic processes in NWH individuals; however, this may be secondary to inadequate screening with a total body skin examination.

Clinical Workup of NWH Patients—Because most NWH individuals present to the ED to receive care, their care compared with WH patients should be considered. In this cohort, WH patients received a less extensive clinical workup. They received almost half as many dermatologic consultations and fewer outpatient referrals to dermatology. Major communication barriers may affect NWH presentation to follow-up, which was drastically lower than WH individuals, as scheduling typically occurs well after discharge from the ED or inpatient unit. We suggest a few alterations to improve dermatologic care for NWH individuals:

• Consider inpatient consultation for serious dermatologic conditions—even if chronic—to improve disease control, considering that many barriers inhibit follow-up in clinic.

• Involve outreach teams, such as the Assertive Community Treatment teams, that assist individuals by delivering medicine for psychiatric disorders, conducting total-body skin examinations, assisting with wound care, providing basic skin barrier creams or medicaments, and carrying information regarding outpatient follow-up.

• Educate ED providers on the most common skin concerns, especially those that fall within the noninfectious inflammatory category, such as hidradenitis suppurativa, which could easily be misdiagnosed as an abscess.

Future Directions—Owing to limitations of a retrospective cohort study, we present several opportunities for further research on this vulnerable population. The severity of disease, especially infectious etiologies, should be graded to determine if NWH patients truly present later in the disease course. The duration and quality of housing for NWH patients could be categorized based on living conditions (eg, on the street vs in a shelter). Although the findings of our NWH cohort presenting to the ED at UMC provide helpful insight into dermatologic disease, these findings may be disparate from those conducted at other locations in the United States. University Medical Center provides care to mostly subsidized insurance plans in a racially diverse community. Improved outcomes for the NWH individuals living in New Orleans start with obtaining a greater understanding of their diseases and where disparities exist that can be bridged with better care.

Acknowledgment—The dataset generated during this study and used for analysis is not publicly available to protect public health information but is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

More than half a million individuals are without housing (NWH) on any given night in the United States, as estimated by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. ¹ Lack of hygiene, increased risk of infection and infestation due to living conditions, and barriers to health care put these individuals at increased risk for disease. ² Skin disease, including fungal infection and acne, are within the top 10 most prevalent diseases worldwide and can cause major psychologic impairment, yet dermatologic concerns and clinical outcomes in NWH patients have not been well characterized. ^2-5 Further, because this vulnerable demographic tends to be underinsured, they frequently present to the emergency department (ED) for management of disease. ^1,6 Survey of common concerns in NWH patients is of utility to consulting dermatologists and nondermatologist providers in the ED, who can familiarize themselves with management of diseases they are more likely to encounter. Few studies examine dermatologic conditions in the ED, and a thorough literature review indicates none have included homelessness as a variable. ^6,7 Additionally, comparison with a matched control group of patients with housing (WH) is limited. ^5,8 We present one of the largest comparisons of cutaneous disease in NWH vs WH patients in a single hospital system to elucidate the types of cutaneous disease that motivate patients to seek care, the location of skin disease, and differences in clinical care.

Methods

A retrospective medical record review of patients seen for an inclusive list of dermatologic diagnoses in the ED or while admitted at University Medical Center New Orleans, Louisiana (UMC), between January 1, 2018, and April 21, 2020, was conducted. This study was qualified as exempt from the institutional review board by Louisiana State University because it proposed zero risk to the patients and remained completely anonymous. Eight hundred forty-two total medical records were reviewed (NWH, 421; WH, 421)(Table 1). Patients with housing were matched based on self-identified race and ethnicity, sex, and age. Disease categories were constructed based on fundamental pathophysiology adapted from Dermatology⁹: infectious, noninfectious inflammatory, neoplasm, trauma and wounds, drug-related eruptions, vascular, pruritic, pigmented, bullous, neuropsychiatric, and other. Other included unspecified eruptions as well as miscellaneous lesions such as calluses. The current chief concern, anatomic location, and configuration were recorded, as well as biopsied lesions and outpatient referrals or inpatient consultations to dermatology or other specialties, including wound care, infectious disease, podiatry, and surgery. χ² analysis was used to analyze significance of cutaneous categories, body location, and referrals. Groups smaller than 5 defaulted to the Fisher exact test.

Results

The total diagnoses (including both chief concerns and secondary diagnoses) are shown in Table 2. Chief concerns were more frequently cutaneous or dermatologic for WH (NWH, 209; WH, 307; P<.001). In both groups, cutaneous infectious etiologies were more likely to be a patient’s presenting chief concern (58% NWH, P=.002; 42% WH, P<.001). Noninfectious inflammatory etiologies and pigmented lesions were more likely to be secondary diagnoses with an unrelated noncutaneous concern; noninfectious inflammatory etiologies were only 16% of the total cutaneous chief concerns (11% NWH, P=.04; 20% WH, P=.03), and no pigmented lesions were chief concerns.

Infection was the most common chief concern, though NWH patients presented with significantly more infectious concerns (NWH, 212; WH, 150; P<.001), particularly infestations (NWH, 33; WH, 8; P<.001) and bacterial etiologies (NWH, 127; WH, 100; P=.04). The majority of bacterial etiologies were either an abscess or cellulitis (NWH, 106; WH, 83), though infected chronic wounds were categorized as bacterial infection when treated definitively as such (eg, in the case of sacral ulcers causing osteomyelitis)(NWH, 21; WH, 17). Of note, infectious etiology was associated with intravenous drug use (IVDU) in both NWH and WH patients. Of 184 NWH who reported IVDU, 127 had an infectious diagnosis (P<.001). Similarly, 43 of 56 total WH patients who reported IVDU had an infectious diagnosis (P<.001). Infestation (within the infectious category) included scabies (NWH, 20; WH, 3) and insect or arthropod bites (NWH, 12; WH, 5). Two NWH patients also presented with swelling of the lower extremities and were subsequently diagnosed with maggot infestations. Fungal and viral etiologies were not significantly increased in either group; however, NWH did have a higher incidence of tinea pedis (NWH, 14; WH, 4; P=.03).

More neoplasms (NWH, 6; WH, 16; P=.03), noninfectious inflammatory eruptions (NWH, 48; WH, 85; P<.001), and cutaneous drug eruptions (NWH, 5; WH, 27; P<.001) were reported in WH patients. There was no significant difference in benign vs malignant neoplastic processes between groups. More noninfectious inflammatory eruptions in WH were specifically driven by a markedly increased incidence of follicular (NWH, 9; WH, 29; P<.001) and urticarial/erythematous (NWH, 3; WH, 13; P=.02) lesions. Follicular etiologies included acne (NWH, 1; WH, 6; P=.12), folliculitis (NWH, 5; WH, 2; P=.45), hidradenitis suppurativa (NWH, 2; WH, 11; P=.02), and pilonidal and sebaceous cysts (NWH, 1; WH, 10; P=.01). Allergic urticaria dominated the urticarial/erythematous category (NWH, 3; WH, 11; P=.06), though there were 2 WH presentations of diffuse erythema and skin peeling.

Another substantial proportion of cutaneous etiologies were due to trauma or chronic wounds. Significantly more traumatic injuries presented in NWH patients vs WH patients (36 vs 31; P=.04). Trauma included human or dog bites (NWH, 5; WH, 4), sunburns (NWH, 3; WH, 0), other burns (NWH, 11; WH, 13), abrasions and lacerations (NWH, 16; WH, 3; P=.004), and foreign bodies (NWH, 1; WH, 1). Wounds consisted of chronic wounds such as those due to diabetes mellitus (foot ulcers) or immobility (sacral ulcers); numbers were similar between groups.

Looking at location, NWH patients had more pathology on the feet (NWH, 62; WH, 39; P=.02), whereas WH patients had more disseminated multiregional concerns (NWH, 55; WH, 75; P=.05). No one body location was notably more likely to warrant a chief concern.

For clinical outcomes, more WH patients received a consultation of any kind (NWH, 171; WH, 217; P<.001), consultation to dermatology (NWH, 49; WH, 87; P<.001), and consultation to surgery (NWH, 64; WH, 110; P<.001)(Table 3 and Figure). More outpatient referrals to dermatology were made for WH patients (NWH, 61; WH, 82; P=.05). Notably, NWH patients presented for 80% fewer hospital follow-up appointments (NWH, 11; WH, 55; P<.001). It is essential to note that these findings were not affected by self-reported race or ethnicity. Results remained significant when broken into cohorts consisting of patients with and without skin of color.

Comment

Cutaneous Concerns in NWH Patients—Although cutaneous disease has been reported to disproportionately affect NWH patients,¹⁰ in our cohort, NWH patients had fewer cutaneous chief concerns than WH patients. However, without comparing with all patients entering the ED at UMC, we cannot make a statement on this claim. We do present a few reasons why NWH patients do not have more cutaneous concerns. First, they may wait to present with cutaneous disease until it becomes more severe (eg, until chronic wounds have progressed to infections). Second, as discussed in depth by Hollestein and Nijsten,³ dermatologic disease may be a major contributor to the overall count of disability-adjusted life years but may play a minor role in individual disability. Therefore, skin disease often is considered less important on an individual basis, despite substantial psychosocial burden, leading to further stigmatization of this vulnerable population and discouraged care-seeking behavior, particularly for noninfectious inflammatory eruptions, which were notably more present in WH individuals. Third, fewer dermatologic lesions were reported on NWH patients, which may explain why all 3 WH pigmented lesions were diagnosed after presentation with a noncutaneous concern (eg, headache, anemia, nausea).

Infectious Cutaneous Diagnoses—The increased presentation of infectious etiologies, especially bacterial, is linked to the increased numbers of IVDUs reported in NWH individuals as well as increased exposure and decreased access to basic hygienic supplies. Intravenous drug use acted as an effect modifier of infectious etiology diagnoses, playing a major role in both NWH and WH cohorts. Although Black and Hispanic individuals as well as individuals with low socioeconomic status have increased proportions of skin cancer, there are inadequate data on the prevalence in NWH individuals.⁴ We found no increase in malignant dermatologic processes in NWH individuals; however, this may be secondary to inadequate screening with a total body skin examination.

Clinical Workup of NWH Patients—Because most NWH individuals present to the ED to receive care, their care compared with WH patients should be considered. In this cohort, WH patients received a less extensive clinical workup. They received almost half as many dermatologic consultations and fewer outpatient referrals to dermatology. Major communication barriers may affect NWH presentation to follow-up, which was drastically lower than WH individuals, as scheduling typically occurs well after discharge from the ED or inpatient unit. We suggest a few alterations to improve dermatologic care for NWH individuals:

• Consider inpatient consultation for serious dermatologic conditions—even if chronic—to improve disease control, considering that many barriers inhibit follow-up in clinic.

• Involve outreach teams, such as the Assertive Community Treatment teams, that assist individuals by delivering medicine for psychiatric disorders, conducting total-body skin examinations, assisting with wound care, providing basic skin barrier creams or medicaments, and carrying information regarding outpatient follow-up.

• Educate ED providers on the most common skin concerns, especially those that fall within the noninfectious inflammatory category, such as hidradenitis suppurativa, which could easily be misdiagnosed as an abscess.

Future Directions—Owing to limitations of a retrospective cohort study, we present several opportunities for further research on this vulnerable population. The severity of disease, especially infectious etiologies, should be graded to determine if NWH patients truly present later in the disease course. The duration and quality of housing for NWH patients could be categorized based on living conditions (eg, on the street vs in a shelter). Although the findings of our NWH cohort presenting to the ED at UMC provide helpful insight into dermatologic disease, these findings may be disparate from those conducted at other locations in the United States. University Medical Center provides care to mostly subsidized insurance plans in a racially diverse community. Improved outcomes for the NWH individuals living in New Orleans start with obtaining a greater understanding of their diseases and where disparities exist that can be bridged with better care.

Acknowledgment—The dataset generated during this study and used for analysis is not publicly available to protect public health information but is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

A dozen workers from a psychiatric hospital near Seattle flew to Washington, D.C. to picket the National Association for Behavioral Healthcare’s annual meeting in an effort to get their employer to meet demands for a safer work environment, better staffing, and the hiring of security professionals.

They are also demanding that their employer, Cascade Behavioral Health Hospital, a private psychiatric facility owned by Acadia Healthcare and located in Tukwila, Washington, address what they call “racist harassment” by managers who have allegedly told many workers, who are primarily people of color, that they are going to be “filtered out,” Alazar Yirgu, a mental health technician at the facility, told this news organization.

The workers have been conducting a “safety strike” to protest working conditions at Cascade since early August. The protest in Tukwila began after a dozen or more workers were hurt in an August 1 incident during which they had attempted to restrain a violent patient.

“We’ve been out there for 2 months, and we will continue until our voice is heard,” said Mr. Yirgu, who was hospitalized as a result of the August patient outburst that he said has left him unable to work since the incident.

On Oct. 7, Mr. Yirgu and coworkers brought the protest to Washington, D.C., in a continued effort to voice their need for adequate personal protective equipment, increased staffing, and the hiring of security personnel.

“Any health care professional should not be fearful to do their job, because once they are in that state of mind, once they are fearful for themselves, then they are not doing their jobs; they are preoccupied with their fears,” said Mr. Yirgu, who has worked as a technician for 6 years.
 

Unsafe patient load

The workers reacted quickly after the August 1 patient outburst because there have been multiple previous incidents, Mr. Yirgu said.

In a 2019 news story by the Seattle Times, the newspaper reported there had been 65 assaults on patients or staff at Cascade from 2016 to 2018, resulting in concussions and broken bones in some instances.

Mr. Yirgu said that more recently, a patient broke a second story window, jumped to the ground, and ran off.

At the facility, workers are often assigned to as many as a dozen or more patients, he said, noting that at other psychiatric institutions, he’s cared for a maximum of five patients at once.

The Tukwila police have pushed back against the workers’ description of the incident in which Mr. Yirgu was injured, and Cascade Behavioral Health has aggressively defended its facility.

According to Mr. Yirgu, the expletive-spewing patient was clearly a danger to himself and others – especially after he stole a key card that would give him access to the entire facility, including the kitchen where knives were stored.

When more than a dozen staff answered the unit’s “Code Gray,” they were unable to subdue or restrain him. Mr. Yirgu ended up on the floor underneath the patient after the patient had jumped off a table.

As the incident unfolded, several workers called the police, who initially refused to go to the facility, saying that a new law prevented them from assisting with the restraint if there was no assault.

The Tukwila Police Department report shows that officers finally did go to the facility and determined that “a crime had not been committed based on the information presented to them, that there was no imminent threat of bodily harm, and that there was no legal grounds or authority for them to assist medical staff with physically restraining a patient.”
 

Cascade pushes back

A Service Employees International Union (SEIU) report shows about 70 workers refused to come in to work after the incident and began picketing outside the facility.

Cascade called it an illegal strike because the protesters had not given 10-days’ notice, as required by federal law, and moved to terminate those who participated. The local SEIU chapter, 1199NW, suggested the workers call their walkout a “safety strike,” because it was organized primarily to protest working conditions.

Meanwhile Cascade, which has erected a large fence so that no one in the facility can see the protesters, has said the strike is primarily about ongoing contract negotiations with the facility’s nurses and its union.

“The Union has been trying to apply unfair – and in some cases we believe unlawful – external pressures to this process, including picketing, work stoppages, smear campaigns, and false accusations,” Cascade CEO Christopher West wrote on the company’s website in mid-August.

Mr. West also claimed the union had “exaggerated stories of unfavorable work conditions to bolster its contract bargaining objectives.” He said the facility had “ample personal protective equipment” and that the “well-being and safety of our patients and staff always have been and will be our key priorities.”

In response to a request for comment, Cascade said in an emailed statement that physical confrontations had decreased by almost 50% and elopements (unauthorized leaving of the facility) by 80% from 2018 to 2021.

Cascade spokesperson Gretchen Hommrich said in the statement that the workers it has terminated “were let go for cause in violation to their employment agreement” and said the company still aimed to negotiate a new agreement with the union.

The “efforts outside of the bargaining process serve no productive purpose and have only brought harm to the residents they claim to serve,” said Ms. Hommrich.
 

‘Safety is the sole purpose’

Mr. Yirgu said it was outrageous to suggest workers were picketing over contract negotiations. “Safety is the sole purpose of this strike,” he said.

He noted that his patient care goal is to have a lot of one-on-one time with his patients, helping them navigate back to the outside world. The facility is supposed to be a safe place, Mr. Yirgu added. Violence inside the facility traumatizes the patients and may worsen their condition and delay their progress, he said.

“If I can’t keep them safe, there’s no way I’m going to be able to see them eye-to-eye when I told them I’d keep them safe and then they’re not anymore,” said Mr. Yirgu.

So far, 22 workers have been “terminated,” meaning they received a termination notice, have been taken off the work schedule by the employer, or otherwise been informed that the employer has deemed them to be separated, the SEIU reports. The organization has filed unfair labor practice (ULPs) for all 22.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A dozen workers from a psychiatric hospital near Seattle flew to Washington, D.C. to picket the National Association for Behavioral Healthcare’s annual meeting in an effort to get their employer to meet demands for a safer work environment, better staffing, and the hiring of security professionals.

They are also demanding that their employer, Cascade Behavioral Health Hospital, a private psychiatric facility owned by Acadia Healthcare and located in Tukwila, Washington, address what they call “racist harassment” by managers who have allegedly told many workers, who are primarily people of color, that they are going to be “filtered out,” Alazar Yirgu, a mental health technician at the facility, told this news organization.

The workers have been conducting a “safety strike” to protest working conditions at Cascade since early August. The protest in Tukwila began after a dozen or more workers were hurt in an August 1 incident during which they had attempted to restrain a violent patient.

“We’ve been out there for 2 months, and we will continue until our voice is heard,” said Mr. Yirgu, who was hospitalized as a result of the August patient outburst that he said has left him unable to work since the incident.

On Oct. 7, Mr. Yirgu and coworkers brought the protest to Washington, D.C., in a continued effort to voice their need for adequate personal protective equipment, increased staffing, and the hiring of security personnel.

“Any health care professional should not be fearful to do their job, because once they are in that state of mind, once they are fearful for themselves, then they are not doing their jobs; they are preoccupied with their fears,” said Mr. Yirgu, who has worked as a technician for 6 years.
 

Unsafe patient load

The workers reacted quickly after the August 1 patient outburst because there have been multiple previous incidents, Mr. Yirgu said.

In a 2019 news story by the Seattle Times, the newspaper reported there had been 65 assaults on patients or staff at Cascade from 2016 to 2018, resulting in concussions and broken bones in some instances.

Mr. Yirgu said that more recently, a patient broke a second story window, jumped to the ground, and ran off.

At the facility, workers are often assigned to as many as a dozen or more patients, he said, noting that at other psychiatric institutions, he’s cared for a maximum of five patients at once.

The Tukwila police have pushed back against the workers’ description of the incident in which Mr. Yirgu was injured, and Cascade Behavioral Health has aggressively defended its facility.

According to Mr. Yirgu, the expletive-spewing patient was clearly a danger to himself and others – especially after he stole a key card that would give him access to the entire facility, including the kitchen where knives were stored.

When more than a dozen staff answered the unit’s “Code Gray,” they were unable to subdue or restrain him. Mr. Yirgu ended up on the floor underneath the patient after the patient had jumped off a table.

As the incident unfolded, several workers called the police, who initially refused to go to the facility, saying that a new law prevented them from assisting with the restraint if there was no assault.

The Tukwila Police Department report shows that officers finally did go to the facility and determined that “a crime had not been committed based on the information presented to them, that there was no imminent threat of bodily harm, and that there was no legal grounds or authority for them to assist medical staff with physically restraining a patient.”
 

Cascade pushes back

A Service Employees International Union (SEIU) report shows about 70 workers refused to come in to work after the incident and began picketing outside the facility.

Cascade called it an illegal strike because the protesters had not given 10-days’ notice, as required by federal law, and moved to terminate those who participated. The local SEIU chapter, 1199NW, suggested the workers call their walkout a “safety strike,” because it was organized primarily to protest working conditions.

Meanwhile Cascade, which has erected a large fence so that no one in the facility can see the protesters, has said the strike is primarily about ongoing contract negotiations with the facility’s nurses and its union.

“The Union has been trying to apply unfair – and in some cases we believe unlawful – external pressures to this process, including picketing, work stoppages, smear campaigns, and false accusations,” Cascade CEO Christopher West wrote on the company’s website in mid-August.

Mr. West also claimed the union had “exaggerated stories of unfavorable work conditions to bolster its contract bargaining objectives.” He said the facility had “ample personal protective equipment” and that the “well-being and safety of our patients and staff always have been and will be our key priorities.”

In response to a request for comment, Cascade said in an emailed statement that physical confrontations had decreased by almost 50% and elopements (unauthorized leaving of the facility) by 80% from 2018 to 2021.

Cascade spokesperson Gretchen Hommrich said in the statement that the workers it has terminated “were let go for cause in violation to their employment agreement” and said the company still aimed to negotiate a new agreement with the union.

The “efforts outside of the bargaining process serve no productive purpose and have only brought harm to the residents they claim to serve,” said Ms. Hommrich.
 

‘Safety is the sole purpose’

Mr. Yirgu said it was outrageous to suggest workers were picketing over contract negotiations. “Safety is the sole purpose of this strike,” he said.

He noted that his patient care goal is to have a lot of one-on-one time with his patients, helping them navigate back to the outside world. The facility is supposed to be a safe place, Mr. Yirgu added. Violence inside the facility traumatizes the patients and may worsen their condition and delay their progress, he said.

“If I can’t keep them safe, there’s no way I’m going to be able to see them eye-to-eye when I told them I’d keep them safe and then they’re not anymore,” said Mr. Yirgu.

So far, 22 workers have been “terminated,” meaning they received a termination notice, have been taken off the work schedule by the employer, or otherwise been informed that the employer has deemed them to be separated, the SEIU reports. The organization has filed unfair labor practice (ULPs) for all 22.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A dozen workers from a psychiatric hospital near Seattle flew to Washington, D.C. to picket the National Association for Behavioral Healthcare’s annual meeting in an effort to get their employer to meet demands for a safer work environment, better staffing, and the hiring of security professionals.

They are also demanding that their employer, Cascade Behavioral Health Hospital, a private psychiatric facility owned by Acadia Healthcare and located in Tukwila, Washington, address what they call “racist harassment” by managers who have allegedly told many workers, who are primarily people of color, that they are going to be “filtered out,” Alazar Yirgu, a mental health technician at the facility, told this news organization.

The workers have been conducting a “safety strike” to protest working conditions at Cascade since early August. The protest in Tukwila began after a dozen or more workers were hurt in an August 1 incident during which they had attempted to restrain a violent patient.

“We’ve been out there for 2 months, and we will continue until our voice is heard,” said Mr. Yirgu, who was hospitalized as a result of the August patient outburst that he said has left him unable to work since the incident.

On Oct. 7, Mr. Yirgu and coworkers brought the protest to Washington, D.C., in a continued effort to voice their need for adequate personal protective equipment, increased staffing, and the hiring of security personnel.

“Any health care professional should not be fearful to do their job, because once they are in that state of mind, once they are fearful for themselves, then they are not doing their jobs; they are preoccupied with their fears,” said Mr. Yirgu, who has worked as a technician for 6 years.
 

Unsafe patient load

The workers reacted quickly after the August 1 patient outburst because there have been multiple previous incidents, Mr. Yirgu said.

In a 2019 news story by the Seattle Times, the newspaper reported there had been 65 assaults on patients or staff at Cascade from 2016 to 2018, resulting in concussions and broken bones in some instances.

Mr. Yirgu said that more recently, a patient broke a second story window, jumped to the ground, and ran off.

At the facility, workers are often assigned to as many as a dozen or more patients, he said, noting that at other psychiatric institutions, he’s cared for a maximum of five patients at once.

The Tukwila police have pushed back against the workers’ description of the incident in which Mr. Yirgu was injured, and Cascade Behavioral Health has aggressively defended its facility.

According to Mr. Yirgu, the expletive-spewing patient was clearly a danger to himself and others – especially after he stole a key card that would give him access to the entire facility, including the kitchen where knives were stored.

When more than a dozen staff answered the unit’s “Code Gray,” they were unable to subdue or restrain him. Mr. Yirgu ended up on the floor underneath the patient after the patient had jumped off a table.

As the incident unfolded, several workers called the police, who initially refused to go to the facility, saying that a new law prevented them from assisting with the restraint if there was no assault.

The Tukwila Police Department report shows that officers finally did go to the facility and determined that “a crime had not been committed based on the information presented to them, that there was no imminent threat of bodily harm, and that there was no legal grounds or authority for them to assist medical staff with physically restraining a patient.”
 

Cascade pushes back

A Service Employees International Union (SEIU) report shows about 70 workers refused to come in to work after the incident and began picketing outside the facility.

Cascade called it an illegal strike because the protesters had not given 10-days’ notice, as required by federal law, and moved to terminate those who participated. The local SEIU chapter, 1199NW, suggested the workers call their walkout a “safety strike,” because it was organized primarily to protest working conditions.

Meanwhile Cascade, which has erected a large fence so that no one in the facility can see the protesters, has said the strike is primarily about ongoing contract negotiations with the facility’s nurses and its union.

“The Union has been trying to apply unfair – and in some cases we believe unlawful – external pressures to this process, including picketing, work stoppages, smear campaigns, and false accusations,” Cascade CEO Christopher West wrote on the company’s website in mid-August.

Mr. West also claimed the union had “exaggerated stories of unfavorable work conditions to bolster its contract bargaining objectives.” He said the facility had “ample personal protective equipment” and that the “well-being and safety of our patients and staff always have been and will be our key priorities.”

In response to a request for comment, Cascade said in an emailed statement that physical confrontations had decreased by almost 50% and elopements (unauthorized leaving of the facility) by 80% from 2018 to 2021.

Cascade spokesperson Gretchen Hommrich said in the statement that the workers it has terminated “were let go for cause in violation to their employment agreement” and said the company still aimed to negotiate a new agreement with the union.

The “efforts outside of the bargaining process serve no productive purpose and have only brought harm to the residents they claim to serve,” said Ms. Hommrich.
 

‘Safety is the sole purpose’

Mr. Yirgu said it was outrageous to suggest workers were picketing over contract negotiations. “Safety is the sole purpose of this strike,” he said.

He noted that his patient care goal is to have a lot of one-on-one time with his patients, helping them navigate back to the outside world. The facility is supposed to be a safe place, Mr. Yirgu added. Violence inside the facility traumatizes the patients and may worsen their condition and delay their progress, he said.

“If I can’t keep them safe, there’s no way I’m going to be able to see them eye-to-eye when I told them I’d keep them safe and then they’re not anymore,” said Mr. Yirgu.

So far, 22 workers have been “terminated,” meaning they received a termination notice, have been taken off the work schedule by the employer, or otherwise been informed that the employer has deemed them to be separated, the SEIU reports. The organization has filed unfair labor practice (ULPs) for all 22.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Among adolescents treated for injuries caused by family-member violence, the proportion of incidents that involved illegal drugs or weapons more than doubled during the pandemic, and incidents that involved alcohol nearly doubled, according to data presented October 10 at the American Academy of Pediatrics 2021 National Conference.

“The COVID-19 pandemic amplified risk factors known to increase family interpersonal violence, such as increased need for parental supervision, parental stress, financial hardship, poor mental health, and isolation,” said investigator Mattea Miller, an MD candidate at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore.

To examine the issue, she and her colleagues “sought to characterize the prevalence and circumstances of adolescent injuries resulting from family interpersonal violence,” Ms. Miller told this news organization.

Their retrospective analysis involved children 10 to 15 years of age seen before or during the pandemic in the emergency department at Johns Hopkins Children’s Center for injuries that resulted from a violent incident with a family member.

Of the 819 incidents of violence-related injuries seen during the study period – the prepandemic ran from Jan. 1, 2019 to March 29, 2020, and the pandemic period ran from March 30, 2020, the date a stay-at-home order was first issued in Maryland, to Dec. 31, 2020 – 448 (54.7%) involved a family member. The proportion of such injuries was similar before and during the pandemic (54.6% vs. 54.9%; P = .99).

Most (83.9%) of these incidents occurred at home, 76.6% involved a parent or guardian, and 66.7% involved the youth being transported to the hospital by police.

It is surprising that families accounted for such a high level of violence involving adolescents, said Christopher S. Greeley, MD, MS, chief of the division of public health pediatrics at Texas Children’s Hospital and professor of pediatrics at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, who was not involved in the research.

“The most common source of child physical abuse in younger children – infants and toddlers – [is the] parents,” who account for about 75% of cases, “but to see that amount of violence in adolescents was unexpected,” he told this news organization.

Patients in the study cohort were more likely to be Black than the hospital’s overall emergency-department population (84.4% vs. 60.0%), and more likely to be covered by public insurance (71.2% vs. 60.0%).

In the study cohort, 54.0% of the patients were female.

“We were surprised to see that 8% of visits did not have a referral to a social worker” – 92% of patients in the study cohort received a social work consult during their visit to the emergency department – and that number “did not vary during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Ms. Miller said. The pandemic exacerbated the types of stresses that social workers can help address, so “this potentially represents a gap in care that is important to address,” she added.
 

Increase in use of alcohol, drugs, weapons

The most significant increases from the prepandemic period to the pandemic period were in incidents that involved alcohol (10.0% vs. 18.8%; P ≤ .001), illegal drugs (6.5% vs. 14.9%; P ≤ .001), and weapons, most often a knife (10.7% vs. 23.8%; P ≤ .001).

“An obvious potential explanation for the increase in alcohol, drug, and weapons [involvement] would be the mental health impact of the pandemic in conjunction with the economic stressors that some families may be feeling,” Dr. Greeley said. Teachers are the most common reporters of child abuse, so it’s possible that reports of violence decreased when schools switched to remote learning. But with most schools back to in-person learning, data have not yet shown a surge in reporting, he noted.

The “epidemiology of family violence may be impacted by increased time at home, disruptions in school and family routines, exacerbations in mental health conditions, and financial stresses common during the pandemic,” said senior study investigator Leticia Ryan, MD, MPH, director of research in pediatrics at Johns Hopkins Medicine.

And research has shown increases in the use of alcohol and illegal drugs during the pandemic, she noted.

“As we transition to postpandemic life, it will be important to identify at-risk adolescents and families and provide supports,” Dr. Ryan told this news organization. “The emergency department is an appropriate setting to intervene with youth who have experienced family violence and initiate preventive strategies to avoid future violence.”

Among the strategies to identify and intervene for at-risk patients is the CRAFFT substance use screening tool. Furthermore, “case management, involvement of child protection services, and linkage with relevant support services may all be appropriate, depending on circumstances,” Ms. Miller added.

“Exposure to family violence at a young age increases the likelihood that a child will be exposed to additional violence or become a perpetrator of violence in the future, continuing a cycle of violence,” Ms. Miller explained. “Given that studies of adolescent violence often focus on peer violence, a better understanding of the epidemiology of violence-related injuries resulting from family violence is needed to better inform the development of more comprehensive prevention strategies.”

This study did not note any external funding. Ms. Miller, Dr. Greeley, and Dr. Ryan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Among adolescents treated for injuries caused by family-member violence, the proportion of incidents that involved illegal drugs or weapons more than doubled during the pandemic, and incidents that involved alcohol nearly doubled, according to data presented October 10 at the American Academy of Pediatrics 2021 National Conference.

“The COVID-19 pandemic amplified risk factors known to increase family interpersonal violence, such as increased need for parental supervision, parental stress, financial hardship, poor mental health, and isolation,” said investigator Mattea Miller, an MD candidate at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore.

To examine the issue, she and her colleagues “sought to characterize the prevalence and circumstances of adolescent injuries resulting from family interpersonal violence,” Ms. Miller told this news organization.

Their retrospective analysis involved children 10 to 15 years of age seen before or during the pandemic in the emergency department at Johns Hopkins Children’s Center for injuries that resulted from a violent incident with a family member.

Of the 819 incidents of violence-related injuries seen during the study period – the prepandemic ran from Jan. 1, 2019 to March 29, 2020, and the pandemic period ran from March 30, 2020, the date a stay-at-home order was first issued in Maryland, to Dec. 31, 2020 – 448 (54.7%) involved a family member. The proportion of such injuries was similar before and during the pandemic (54.6% vs. 54.9%; P = .99).

Most (83.9%) of these incidents occurred at home, 76.6% involved a parent or guardian, and 66.7% involved the youth being transported to the hospital by police.

It is surprising that families accounted for such a high level of violence involving adolescents, said Christopher S. Greeley, MD, MS, chief of the division of public health pediatrics at Texas Children’s Hospital and professor of pediatrics at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, who was not involved in the research.

“The most common source of child physical abuse in younger children – infants and toddlers – [is the] parents,” who account for about 75% of cases, “but to see that amount of violence in adolescents was unexpected,” he told this news organization.

Patients in the study cohort were more likely to be Black than the hospital’s overall emergency-department population (84.4% vs. 60.0%), and more likely to be covered by public insurance (71.2% vs. 60.0%).

In the study cohort, 54.0% of the patients were female.

“We were surprised to see that 8% of visits did not have a referral to a social worker” – 92% of patients in the study cohort received a social work consult during their visit to the emergency department – and that number “did not vary during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Ms. Miller said. The pandemic exacerbated the types of stresses that social workers can help address, so “this potentially represents a gap in care that is important to address,” she added.
 

Increase in use of alcohol, drugs, weapons

The most significant increases from the prepandemic period to the pandemic period were in incidents that involved alcohol (10.0% vs. 18.8%; P ≤ .001), illegal drugs (6.5% vs. 14.9%; P ≤ .001), and weapons, most often a knife (10.7% vs. 23.8%; P ≤ .001).

“An obvious potential explanation for the increase in alcohol, drug, and weapons [involvement] would be the mental health impact of the pandemic in conjunction with the economic stressors that some families may be feeling,” Dr. Greeley said. Teachers are the most common reporters of child abuse, so it’s possible that reports of violence decreased when schools switched to remote learning. But with most schools back to in-person learning, data have not yet shown a surge in reporting, he noted.

The “epidemiology of family violence may be impacted by increased time at home, disruptions in school and family routines, exacerbations in mental health conditions, and financial stresses common during the pandemic,” said senior study investigator Leticia Ryan, MD, MPH, director of research in pediatrics at Johns Hopkins Medicine.

And research has shown increases in the use of alcohol and illegal drugs during the pandemic, she noted.

“As we transition to postpandemic life, it will be important to identify at-risk adolescents and families and provide supports,” Dr. Ryan told this news organization. “The emergency department is an appropriate setting to intervene with youth who have experienced family violence and initiate preventive strategies to avoid future violence.”

Among the strategies to identify and intervene for at-risk patients is the CRAFFT substance use screening tool. Furthermore, “case management, involvement of child protection services, and linkage with relevant support services may all be appropriate, depending on circumstances,” Ms. Miller added.

“Exposure to family violence at a young age increases the likelihood that a child will be exposed to additional violence or become a perpetrator of violence in the future, continuing a cycle of violence,” Ms. Miller explained. “Given that studies of adolescent violence often focus on peer violence, a better understanding of the epidemiology of violence-related injuries resulting from family violence is needed to better inform the development of more comprehensive prevention strategies.”

This study did not note any external funding. Ms. Miller, Dr. Greeley, and Dr. Ryan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Among adolescents treated for injuries caused by family-member violence, the proportion of incidents that involved illegal drugs or weapons more than doubled during the pandemic, and incidents that involved alcohol nearly doubled, according to data presented October 10 at the American Academy of Pediatrics 2021 National Conference.

“The COVID-19 pandemic amplified risk factors known to increase family interpersonal violence, such as increased need for parental supervision, parental stress, financial hardship, poor mental health, and isolation,” said investigator Mattea Miller, an MD candidate at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore.

To examine the issue, she and her colleagues “sought to characterize the prevalence and circumstances of adolescent injuries resulting from family interpersonal violence,” Ms. Miller told this news organization.

Their retrospective analysis involved children 10 to 15 years of age seen before or during the pandemic in the emergency department at Johns Hopkins Children’s Center for injuries that resulted from a violent incident with a family member.

Of the 819 incidents of violence-related injuries seen during the study period – the prepandemic ran from Jan. 1, 2019 to March 29, 2020, and the pandemic period ran from March 30, 2020, the date a stay-at-home order was first issued in Maryland, to Dec. 31, 2020 – 448 (54.7%) involved a family member. The proportion of such injuries was similar before and during the pandemic (54.6% vs. 54.9%; P = .99).

Most (83.9%) of these incidents occurred at home, 76.6% involved a parent or guardian, and 66.7% involved the youth being transported to the hospital by police.

It is surprising that families accounted for such a high level of violence involving adolescents, said Christopher S. Greeley, MD, MS, chief of the division of public health pediatrics at Texas Children’s Hospital and professor of pediatrics at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, who was not involved in the research.

“The most common source of child physical abuse in younger children – infants and toddlers – [is the] parents,” who account for about 75% of cases, “but to see that amount of violence in adolescents was unexpected,” he told this news organization.

Patients in the study cohort were more likely to be Black than the hospital’s overall emergency-department population (84.4% vs. 60.0%), and more likely to be covered by public insurance (71.2% vs. 60.0%).

In the study cohort, 54.0% of the patients were female.

“We were surprised to see that 8% of visits did not have a referral to a social worker” – 92% of patients in the study cohort received a social work consult during their visit to the emergency department – and that number “did not vary during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Ms. Miller said. The pandemic exacerbated the types of stresses that social workers can help address, so “this potentially represents a gap in care that is important to address,” she added.
 

Increase in use of alcohol, drugs, weapons

The most significant increases from the prepandemic period to the pandemic period were in incidents that involved alcohol (10.0% vs. 18.8%; P ≤ .001), illegal drugs (6.5% vs. 14.9%; P ≤ .001), and weapons, most often a knife (10.7% vs. 23.8%; P ≤ .001).

“An obvious potential explanation for the increase in alcohol, drug, and weapons [involvement] would be the mental health impact of the pandemic in conjunction with the economic stressors that some families may be feeling,” Dr. Greeley said. Teachers are the most common reporters of child abuse, so it’s possible that reports of violence decreased when schools switched to remote learning. But with most schools back to in-person learning, data have not yet shown a surge in reporting, he noted.

The “epidemiology of family violence may be impacted by increased time at home, disruptions in school and family routines, exacerbations in mental health conditions, and financial stresses common during the pandemic,” said senior study investigator Leticia Ryan, MD, MPH, director of research in pediatrics at Johns Hopkins Medicine.

And research has shown increases in the use of alcohol and illegal drugs during the pandemic, she noted.

“As we transition to postpandemic life, it will be important to identify at-risk adolescents and families and provide supports,” Dr. Ryan told this news organization. “The emergency department is an appropriate setting to intervene with youth who have experienced family violence and initiate preventive strategies to avoid future violence.”

Among the strategies to identify and intervene for at-risk patients is the CRAFFT substance use screening tool. Furthermore, “case management, involvement of child protection services, and linkage with relevant support services may all be appropriate, depending on circumstances,” Ms. Miller added.

“Exposure to family violence at a young age increases the likelihood that a child will be exposed to additional violence or become a perpetrator of violence in the future, continuing a cycle of violence,” Ms. Miller explained. “Given that studies of adolescent violence often focus on peer violence, a better understanding of the epidemiology of violence-related injuries resulting from family violence is needed to better inform the development of more comprehensive prevention strategies.”

This study did not note any external funding. Ms. Miller, Dr. Greeley, and Dr. Ryan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Sixteen-year-old Ana and is sitting on the bench with her science teacher, Ms. Tehrani, waiting for the bus to take them back to their village after school. Ana wants to hear her science teacher’s opinion about her grandmother.

Do you respect your grandmother?

Why yes, of course, why to do you ask?

So you think my grandmother is wise when she tells me old wife tales?

Like what?

Well, she says not to take my medicine because it will have bad effects and that I should take her remedies instead.

What else does she tell you?

Well, she says that people are born how they are and that they belong to either God or the Devil, not to their parents.

What else?

She thinks I am a fay child; she has always said that about me.

What does that mean?

It means that I have my own ways, fairy ways, and that I should go out in the forest and listen.

Do you?

Yes.

What do you hear?

I hear about my destiny.

What do you hear?

I hear that I must wash in witch hazel. My grandmother taught me how to find it and how to prepare it. She said I should sit in the forest and wait for a sign.

What sign?

I don’t know.

Well, what do you think about your grandmother?

I love her but …

But what?

I think she might be wrong about all of this, you know, science and all that.

But you do it, anyway?

Yes.

Why?

Aren’t we supposed to respect our elders, and aren’t they supposed to be wise?



Ms. Tehrani is in a bind. What to say? She has no ready answer, feeling caught between two beliefs: the unscientific basis of ineffective old wives’ treatments and the purported wisdom of our elders. She knows Ana’s family and that there are women in that family going back generations who are identified as medicine women or women with the special powers of the forest.

Ana wants to study science but she is being groomed as the family wise mother. Ana is caught between the ways of the past and the ways of the future. She sees that to go with the future is to devalue her family tradition. If she chooses to study medicine, can she keep the balance between magical ways and the ways of science?

Ms. Tehrani decides to expose her class to Indigenous and preindustrial cultural practices and what science has to say. She describes how knowledge is passed down through the generations, and how some of this knowledge has now been proved correct by science, such as the use of opium for pain management and how some knowledge has been corrected by science. She asks the class: What myths have been passed down in your family that science has shown to be effective or ineffective? What does science have to say about how we live our lives?

After a baby in the village dies, Ms. Tehrani asks the local health center to think about implementing a teaching course on caring for babies, a course that will discuss tradition and science. She is well aware of the fact that Black mothers tend not to follow the advice of the pediatricians who now recommend that parents put babies to sleep on their backs. Black women trust the advice of their paternal and maternal grandmothers more than the advice of health care providers, research by Deborah Stiffler, PhD, RN, CNM, shows (J Spec Pediatr Nurs. 2018 Apr;23[2]:e12213). While new Black mothers feel that they have limited knowledge and are eager to learn about safe sleep practices, their grandmothers were skeptical – and the grandmothers often won that argument. Black mothers believed that their own mothers knew best, based on their experience raising infants.

In Dr. Stiffler’s study, one grandmother commented: “Girls today need a mother to help them take care of their babies. They don’t know how to do anything. When I was growing up, our moms helped us.”

One new mother said: I “listen more to the elderly people because like the social workers and stuff some of them don’t have kids. They just go by the book … so I feel like I listen more to like my grandparents.”
 

Integrating traditions

When Ana enters medical school she is faced with the task of integration of traditional practice and Western medicine. Ana looks to the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH), the U.S. government’s lead agency for scientific research on complementary and integrative health approaches for support in her task. The NCCIH was established in 1998 with the mission of determining the usefulness and safety of complementary and integrative health approaches, and their roles in improving health and health care.

The NCCIH notes that more than 30% of adults use health care approaches that are not part of conventional medical care or that have origins outside of usual Western practice, and 17.7% of American adults had used a dietary supplement other than vitamins and minerals in the past year, most commonly fish oil. This agency notes that large rigorous research studies extend to only a few dietary supplements, with results showing that the products didn’t work for the conditions studied. The work of the NCCIH is mirrored worldwide.

The 2008 Beijing Declaration called on World Health Organization member states and other stakeholders to integrate traditional medicine and complementary alternative medicines into national health care systems. The WHO Congress on Traditional Medicine recognizes that traditional medicine (TM) may be more affordable and accessible than Western medicine, and that it plays an important role in meeting the demands of primary health care in many developing countries. From 70% to 80% of the population in India and Ethiopia depend on TM for primary health care, and 70% of the population in Canada and 80% in Germany are reported to have used TM as complementary and/or alternative medical treatment.

After graduation and residency, Ana returns to her village and helps her science teacher consider how best to shape the intergenerational transmission of knowledge, so that it is both honored by the elders and also shaped by the science of medicine.

Every village, regardless of where it is in the world, has to contend with finding the balance between the traditional medical knowledge that is passed down through the family and the discoveries of science. When it comes to practicing medicine and psychiatry, a respect for family tradition must be weighed against the application of science: this is a long conversation that is well worth its time.
 

Dr. Heru is professor of psychiatry at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. She is editor of “Working With Families in Medical Settings: A Multidisciplinary Guide for Psychiatrists and Other Health Professionals” (New York: Routledge, 2013). Dr. Heru has no conflicts of interest. Contact Dr. Heru at [email protected].

Sixteen-year-old Ana and is sitting on the bench with her science teacher, Ms. Tehrani, waiting for the bus to take them back to their village after school. Ana wants to hear her science teacher’s opinion about her grandmother.

Do you respect your grandmother?

Why yes, of course, why to do you ask?

So you think my grandmother is wise when she tells me old wife tales?

Like what?

Well, she says not to take my medicine because it will have bad effects and that I should take her remedies instead.

What else does she tell you?

Well, she says that people are born how they are and that they belong to either God or the Devil, not to their parents.

What else?

She thinks I am a fay child; she has always said that about me.

What does that mean?

It means that I have my own ways, fairy ways, and that I should go out in the forest and listen.

Do you?

Yes.

What do you hear?

I hear about my destiny.

What do you hear?

I hear that I must wash in witch hazel. My grandmother taught me how to find it and how to prepare it. She said I should sit in the forest and wait for a sign.

What sign?

I don’t know.

Well, what do you think about your grandmother?

I love her but …

But what?

I think she might be wrong about all of this, you know, science and all that.

But you do it, anyway?

Yes.

Why?

Aren’t we supposed to respect our elders, and aren’t they supposed to be wise?



Ms. Tehrani is in a bind. What to say? She has no ready answer, feeling caught between two beliefs: the unscientific basis of ineffective old wives’ treatments and the purported wisdom of our elders. She knows Ana’s family and that there are women in that family going back generations who are identified as medicine women or women with the special powers of the forest.

Ana wants to study science but she is being groomed as the family wise mother. Ana is caught between the ways of the past and the ways of the future. She sees that to go with the future is to devalue her family tradition. If she chooses to study medicine, can she keep the balance between magical ways and the ways of science?

Ms. Tehrani decides to expose her class to Indigenous and preindustrial cultural practices and what science has to say. She describes how knowledge is passed down through the generations, and how some of this knowledge has now been proved correct by science, such as the use of opium for pain management and how some knowledge has been corrected by science. She asks the class: What myths have been passed down in your family that science has shown to be effective or ineffective? What does science have to say about how we live our lives?

After a baby in the village dies, Ms. Tehrani asks the local health center to think about implementing a teaching course on caring for babies, a course that will discuss tradition and science. She is well aware of the fact that Black mothers tend not to follow the advice of the pediatricians who now recommend that parents put babies to sleep on their backs. Black women trust the advice of their paternal and maternal grandmothers more than the advice of health care providers, research by Deborah Stiffler, PhD, RN, CNM, shows (J Spec Pediatr Nurs. 2018 Apr;23[2]:e12213). While new Black mothers feel that they have limited knowledge and are eager to learn about safe sleep practices, their grandmothers were skeptical – and the grandmothers often won that argument. Black mothers believed that their own mothers knew best, based on their experience raising infants.

In Dr. Stiffler’s study, one grandmother commented: “Girls today need a mother to help them take care of their babies. They don’t know how to do anything. When I was growing up, our moms helped us.”

One new mother said: I “listen more to the elderly people because like the social workers and stuff some of them don’t have kids. They just go by the book … so I feel like I listen more to like my grandparents.”
 

Integrating traditions

When Ana enters medical school she is faced with the task of integration of traditional practice and Western medicine. Ana looks to the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH), the U.S. government’s lead agency for scientific research on complementary and integrative health approaches for support in her task. The NCCIH was established in 1998 with the mission of determining the usefulness and safety of complementary and integrative health approaches, and their roles in improving health and health care.

The NCCIH notes that more than 30% of adults use health care approaches that are not part of conventional medical care or that have origins outside of usual Western practice, and 17.7% of American adults had used a dietary supplement other than vitamins and minerals in the past year, most commonly fish oil. This agency notes that large rigorous research studies extend to only a few dietary supplements, with results showing that the products didn’t work for the conditions studied. The work of the NCCIH is mirrored worldwide.

The 2008 Beijing Declaration called on World Health Organization member states and other stakeholders to integrate traditional medicine and complementary alternative medicines into national health care systems. The WHO Congress on Traditional Medicine recognizes that traditional medicine (TM) may be more affordable and accessible than Western medicine, and that it plays an important role in meeting the demands of primary health care in many developing countries. From 70% to 80% of the population in India and Ethiopia depend on TM for primary health care, and 70% of the population in Canada and 80% in Germany are reported to have used TM as complementary and/or alternative medical treatment.

After graduation and residency, Ana returns to her village and helps her science teacher consider how best to shape the intergenerational transmission of knowledge, so that it is both honored by the elders and also shaped by the science of medicine.

Every village, regardless of where it is in the world, has to contend with finding the balance between the traditional medical knowledge that is passed down through the family and the discoveries of science. When it comes to practicing medicine and psychiatry, a respect for family tradition must be weighed against the application of science: this is a long conversation that is well worth its time.
 

Dr. Heru is professor of psychiatry at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. She is editor of “Working With Families in Medical Settings: A Multidisciplinary Guide for Psychiatrists and Other Health Professionals” (New York: Routledge, 2013). Dr. Heru has no conflicts of interest. Contact Dr. Heru at [email protected].

Sixteen-year-old Ana and is sitting on the bench with her science teacher, Ms. Tehrani, waiting for the bus to take them back to their village after school. Ana wants to hear her science teacher’s opinion about her grandmother.

Do you respect your grandmother?

Why yes, of course, why to do you ask?

So you think my grandmother is wise when she tells me old wife tales?

Like what?

Well, she says not to take my medicine because it will have bad effects and that I should take her remedies instead.

What else does she tell you?

Well, she says that people are born how they are and that they belong to either God or the Devil, not to their parents.

What else?

She thinks I am a fay child; she has always said that about me.

What does that mean?

It means that I have my own ways, fairy ways, and that I should go out in the forest and listen.

Do you?

Yes.

What do you hear?

I hear about my destiny.

What do you hear?

I hear that I must wash in witch hazel. My grandmother taught me how to find it and how to prepare it. She said I should sit in the forest and wait for a sign.

What sign?

I don’t know.

Well, what do you think about your grandmother?

I love her but …

But what?

I think she might be wrong about all of this, you know, science and all that.

But you do it, anyway?

Yes.

Why?

Aren’t we supposed to respect our elders, and aren’t they supposed to be wise?



Ms. Tehrani is in a bind. What to say? She has no ready answer, feeling caught between two beliefs: the unscientific basis of ineffective old wives’ treatments and the purported wisdom of our elders. She knows Ana’s family and that there are women in that family going back generations who are identified as medicine women or women with the special powers of the forest.

Ana wants to study science but she is being groomed as the family wise mother. Ana is caught between the ways of the past and the ways of the future. She sees that to go with the future is to devalue her family tradition. If she chooses to study medicine, can she keep the balance between magical ways and the ways of science?

Ms. Tehrani decides to expose her class to Indigenous and preindustrial cultural practices and what science has to say. She describes how knowledge is passed down through the generations, and how some of this knowledge has now been proved correct by science, such as the use of opium for pain management and how some knowledge has been corrected by science. She asks the class: What myths have been passed down in your family that science has shown to be effective or ineffective? What does science have to say about how we live our lives?

After a baby in the village dies, Ms. Tehrani asks the local health center to think about implementing a teaching course on caring for babies, a course that will discuss tradition and science. She is well aware of the fact that Black mothers tend not to follow the advice of the pediatricians who now recommend that parents put babies to sleep on their backs. Black women trust the advice of their paternal and maternal grandmothers more than the advice of health care providers, research by Deborah Stiffler, PhD, RN, CNM, shows (J Spec Pediatr Nurs. 2018 Apr;23[2]:e12213). While new Black mothers feel that they have limited knowledge and are eager to learn about safe sleep practices, their grandmothers were skeptical – and the grandmothers often won that argument. Black mothers believed that their own mothers knew best, based on their experience raising infants.

In Dr. Stiffler’s study, one grandmother commented: “Girls today need a mother to help them take care of their babies. They don’t know how to do anything. When I was growing up, our moms helped us.”

One new mother said: I “listen more to the elderly people because like the social workers and stuff some of them don’t have kids. They just go by the book … so I feel like I listen more to like my grandparents.”
 

Integrating traditions

When Ana enters medical school she is faced with the task of integration of traditional practice and Western medicine. Ana looks to the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH), the U.S. government’s lead agency for scientific research on complementary and integrative health approaches for support in her task. The NCCIH was established in 1998 with the mission of determining the usefulness and safety of complementary and integrative health approaches, and their roles in improving health and health care.

The NCCIH notes that more than 30% of adults use health care approaches that are not part of conventional medical care or that have origins outside of usual Western practice, and 17.7% of American adults had used a dietary supplement other than vitamins and minerals in the past year, most commonly fish oil. This agency notes that large rigorous research studies extend to only a few dietary supplements, with results showing that the products didn’t work for the conditions studied. The work of the NCCIH is mirrored worldwide.

The 2008 Beijing Declaration called on World Health Organization member states and other stakeholders to integrate traditional medicine and complementary alternative medicines into national health care systems. The WHO Congress on Traditional Medicine recognizes that traditional medicine (TM) may be more affordable and accessible than Western medicine, and that it plays an important role in meeting the demands of primary health care in many developing countries. From 70% to 80% of the population in India and Ethiopia depend on TM for primary health care, and 70% of the population in Canada and 80% in Germany are reported to have used TM as complementary and/or alternative medical treatment.

After graduation and residency, Ana returns to her village and helps her science teacher consider how best to shape the intergenerational transmission of knowledge, so that it is both honored by the elders and also shaped by the science of medicine.

Every village, regardless of where it is in the world, has to contend with finding the balance between the traditional medical knowledge that is passed down through the family and the discoveries of science. When it comes to practicing medicine and psychiatry, a respect for family tradition must be weighed against the application of science: this is a long conversation that is well worth its time.
 

Dr. Heru is professor of psychiatry at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. She is editor of “Working With Families in Medical Settings: A Multidisciplinary Guide for Psychiatrists and Other Health Professionals” (New York: Routledge, 2013). Dr. Heru has no conflicts of interest. Contact Dr. Heru at [email protected].

With the strong likelihood that dermatologists in the United States will have to resolve dermatologic issues created by cultural cosmetic practices originating elsewhere, strategies for an open nonjudgmental approach are instrumental, according to a dermatologist with expertise in these types of cases who spoke at the Skin of Color Update 2021.

“Instead of avoiding the discussion of cultural practices, we should discuss them and be open about them. It fosters a comfortable environment, trust, and better compliance,” reported Neelam Ajit Vashi, MD, founding director of the Boston University Center for Ethnic Skin.

Out of fear of causing offense, a desire to be discreet, or of personal discomfort with foreign cultural practices, some clinicians might elect to limit themselves to the information that the patient volunteers, which is a mistake, according to Dr. Vashi.

“The avoidance of topics around culture actually limits the ability to have a successful relationship,” she maintained.

Successful encounters are not just based on a willingness to listen, Dr. Vashi said. Clinicians should be seeking a base of knowledge. With growing globalization and widespread immigration, “it is increasingly important for dermatologists in the U.S. to understand the role of cultural practices [in creating skin problems] and recognize the sequelae,” Dr. Vashi said.

Taking some common examples of dermatologic complaints created by cosmetic practices originating elsewhere, Dr. Vashi described key clinical points in addressing complications related to henna, hair removal through threading, and placement of decorative adornments on the forehead, called bindi. In addition, she pointed out common issues with facial and body marking created with kumkum powder, hair oils, and skin lightening agents.
 

Black henna

For cosmetic enhancement, henna is relatively benign. It is also no longer confined to the south Asian communities where it originated. However, Dr. Vashi pointed out that patients of south Asian origin or descent might be more likely to use black henna, a variety with more risks.

Black henna contains additives, such as diaminobenzenes and p-phenylenediamine (PPD), to darken the tone of the product as well as provide other desired characteristics, such as an accelerated drying time. While some patients do develop reactions to conventional henna, the risks of black henna are greater.

“The acute contact dermatitis reactions can include dyspigmentation, leukoderma, and keloids,” Dr. Vashi said. Other complications include erythema multiforme, temporary hypertrichosis, and systemic allergic reactions, such as angioedema.

While those who have had a reaction to henna should avoid further contact, Dr. Vashi warned that sequelae can include cross reactions with latex and rubber as well as some pharmaceutical agents, such as sulfonamides. When taking a patient history, she noted, be aware that risks of henna extend to the hairdressers and cosmeticians who sometimes apply these products on others.

Hair threading, bindi, and kumkum

Hair threading, another practice popularized in south Asia and now growing in popularity globally, involves capturing hairs between cotton threads for removal of both the hair and its follicle. It is a relatively rapid and efficient method of permanent depilation. In addition to pain and erythema, Dr. Vashi reported that the complications associated with hair threading include pigmentary changes, infections such as bullous impetigo, and lesions of koebnerization – such as vitiligo and lichen planus.

Bindi, a Hindi tradition that involves placing adornments between the eyebrows, and kumkum, a powder typically made from turmeric to be employed for decorative markings, have also spread to use outside of their cultural context, according to Dr. Vashi. She said that the complications of these two cosmetic practices are shared, and stem largely from contact dermatitis.

Veena Nair/Moment/Getty Images

Hair oils, skin-lightening agents

Culturally-linked hair oils among patients from south Asia or Africa – or descendants from these areas – can damage hair in a variety of ways as well as cause contact dermatitis. The oils can also exacerbate existing skin diseases.

“Oils with high oleic acid, such as coconut or olive oils or shea butter, can worsen seborrheic dermatitis,” Dr. Vashi cautioned.

Of this list of dermatologic issues induced by culturally linked cosmetic practices, skin lightening agents might pose the most risk for permanent and irreversible complications. Dr. Vashi said that up to 70% of patients using lighteners develop complications, and there is a relationship between the severity of side effects as duration of use increases.

“The problem is that ingredients of many of these products, which are imported illegally and sold on the black market, are often not disclosed,” Dr. Vashi said. Some contain a high content of metals such as lead, copper, and iron, whether they are added intentionally or end up in the product because of poor quality control. For those developing adverse events associated with the products, the obvious treatment is discontinuation.

When patients are unwilling to discontinue any of the products that have led to dermatologic issues, Dr. Vashi encouraged physicians “to take a middle ground.” Simple avoidance can be challenging for practices that are culturally meaningful. In respecting cultural differences, she encouraged tolerance and compromise.

“Often these patients will be doing an alternative medication or intervention, but this does not mean that they are not accepting what we have to offer,” she said. She indicated that mutual respect will lead to better solutions.

The awareness of common cultural practices that can have a harmful impact on the skin is an area of practice that deserves more attention, Andrew F. Alexis, MD, vice-chair for diversity and inclusion in the department of dermatology at Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, said in an interview.

With the strong likelihood that dermatologists in the United States will have to resolve dermatologic issues created by cultural cosmetic practices originating elsewhere, strategies for an open nonjudgmental approach are instrumental, according to a dermatologist with expertise in these types of cases who spoke at the Skin of Color Update 2021.

“Instead of avoiding the discussion of cultural practices, we should discuss them and be open about them. It fosters a comfortable environment, trust, and better compliance,” reported Neelam Ajit Vashi, MD, founding director of the Boston University Center for Ethnic Skin.

Out of fear of causing offense, a desire to be discreet, or of personal discomfort with foreign cultural practices, some clinicians might elect to limit themselves to the information that the patient volunteers, which is a mistake, according to Dr. Vashi.

“The avoidance of topics around culture actually limits the ability to have a successful relationship,” she maintained.

Successful encounters are not just based on a willingness to listen, Dr. Vashi said. Clinicians should be seeking a base of knowledge. With growing globalization and widespread immigration, “it is increasingly important for dermatologists in the U.S. to understand the role of cultural practices [in creating skin problems] and recognize the sequelae,” Dr. Vashi said.

Taking some common examples of dermatologic complaints created by cosmetic practices originating elsewhere, Dr. Vashi described key clinical points in addressing complications related to henna, hair removal through threading, and placement of decorative adornments on the forehead, called bindi. In addition, she pointed out common issues with facial and body marking created with kumkum powder, hair oils, and skin lightening agents.
 

Black henna

For cosmetic enhancement, henna is relatively benign. It is also no longer confined to the south Asian communities where it originated. However, Dr. Vashi pointed out that patients of south Asian origin or descent might be more likely to use black henna, a variety with more risks.

Black henna contains additives, such as diaminobenzenes and p-phenylenediamine (PPD), to darken the tone of the product as well as provide other desired characteristics, such as an accelerated drying time. While some patients do develop reactions to conventional henna, the risks of black henna are greater.

“The acute contact dermatitis reactions can include dyspigmentation, leukoderma, and keloids,” Dr. Vashi said. Other complications include erythema multiforme, temporary hypertrichosis, and systemic allergic reactions, such as angioedema.

While those who have had a reaction to henna should avoid further contact, Dr. Vashi warned that sequelae can include cross reactions with latex and rubber as well as some pharmaceutical agents, such as sulfonamides. When taking a patient history, she noted, be aware that risks of henna extend to the hairdressers and cosmeticians who sometimes apply these products on others.

Hair threading, bindi, and kumkum

Hair threading, another practice popularized in south Asia and now growing in popularity globally, involves capturing hairs between cotton threads for removal of both the hair and its follicle. It is a relatively rapid and efficient method of permanent depilation. In addition to pain and erythema, Dr. Vashi reported that the complications associated with hair threading include pigmentary changes, infections such as bullous impetigo, and lesions of koebnerization – such as vitiligo and lichen planus.

Bindi, a Hindi tradition that involves placing adornments between the eyebrows, and kumkum, a powder typically made from turmeric to be employed for decorative markings, have also spread to use outside of their cultural context, according to Dr. Vashi. She said that the complications of these two cosmetic practices are shared, and stem largely from contact dermatitis.

Veena Nair/Moment/Getty Images

Hair oils, skin-lightening agents

Culturally-linked hair oils among patients from south Asia or Africa – or descendants from these areas – can damage hair in a variety of ways as well as cause contact dermatitis. The oils can also exacerbate existing skin diseases.

“Oils with high oleic acid, such as coconut or olive oils or shea butter, can worsen seborrheic dermatitis,” Dr. Vashi cautioned.

Of this list of dermatologic issues induced by culturally linked cosmetic practices, skin lightening agents might pose the most risk for permanent and irreversible complications. Dr. Vashi said that up to 70% of patients using lighteners develop complications, and there is a relationship between the severity of side effects as duration of use increases.

“The problem is that ingredients of many of these products, which are imported illegally and sold on the black market, are often not disclosed,” Dr. Vashi said. Some contain a high content of metals such as lead, copper, and iron, whether they are added intentionally or end up in the product because of poor quality control. For those developing adverse events associated with the products, the obvious treatment is discontinuation.

When patients are unwilling to discontinue any of the products that have led to dermatologic issues, Dr. Vashi encouraged physicians “to take a middle ground.” Simple avoidance can be challenging for practices that are culturally meaningful. In respecting cultural differences, she encouraged tolerance and compromise.

“Often these patients will be doing an alternative medication or intervention, but this does not mean that they are not accepting what we have to offer,” she said. She indicated that mutual respect will lead to better solutions.

The awareness of common cultural practices that can have a harmful impact on the skin is an area of practice that deserves more attention, Andrew F. Alexis, MD, vice-chair for diversity and inclusion in the department of dermatology at Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, said in an interview.

With the strong likelihood that dermatologists in the United States will have to resolve dermatologic issues created by cultural cosmetic practices originating elsewhere, strategies for an open nonjudgmental approach are instrumental, according to a dermatologist with expertise in these types of cases who spoke at the Skin of Color Update 2021.

“Instead of avoiding the discussion of cultural practices, we should discuss them and be open about them. It fosters a comfortable environment, trust, and better compliance,” reported Neelam Ajit Vashi, MD, founding director of the Boston University Center for Ethnic Skin.

Out of fear of causing offense, a desire to be discreet, or of personal discomfort with foreign cultural practices, some clinicians might elect to limit themselves to the information that the patient volunteers, which is a mistake, according to Dr. Vashi.

“The avoidance of topics around culture actually limits the ability to have a successful relationship,” she maintained.

Successful encounters are not just based on a willingness to listen, Dr. Vashi said. Clinicians should be seeking a base of knowledge. With growing globalization and widespread immigration, “it is increasingly important for dermatologists in the U.S. to understand the role of cultural practices [in creating skin problems] and recognize the sequelae,” Dr. Vashi said.

Taking some common examples of dermatologic complaints created by cosmetic practices originating elsewhere, Dr. Vashi described key clinical points in addressing complications related to henna, hair removal through threading, and placement of decorative adornments on the forehead, called bindi. In addition, she pointed out common issues with facial and body marking created with kumkum powder, hair oils, and skin lightening agents.
 

Black henna

For cosmetic enhancement, henna is relatively benign. It is also no longer confined to the south Asian communities where it originated. However, Dr. Vashi pointed out that patients of south Asian origin or descent might be more likely to use black henna, a variety with more risks.

Black henna contains additives, such as diaminobenzenes and p-phenylenediamine (PPD), to darken the tone of the product as well as provide other desired characteristics, such as an accelerated drying time. While some patients do develop reactions to conventional henna, the risks of black henna are greater.

“The acute contact dermatitis reactions can include dyspigmentation, leukoderma, and keloids,” Dr. Vashi said. Other complications include erythema multiforme, temporary hypertrichosis, and systemic allergic reactions, such as angioedema.

While those who have had a reaction to henna should avoid further contact, Dr. Vashi warned that sequelae can include cross reactions with latex and rubber as well as some pharmaceutical agents, such as sulfonamides. When taking a patient history, she noted, be aware that risks of henna extend to the hairdressers and cosmeticians who sometimes apply these products on others.

Hair threading, bindi, and kumkum

Hair threading, another practice popularized in south Asia and now growing in popularity globally, involves capturing hairs between cotton threads for removal of both the hair and its follicle. It is a relatively rapid and efficient method of permanent depilation. In addition to pain and erythema, Dr. Vashi reported that the complications associated with hair threading include pigmentary changes, infections such as bullous impetigo, and lesions of koebnerization – such as vitiligo and lichen planus.

Bindi, a Hindi tradition that involves placing adornments between the eyebrows, and kumkum, a powder typically made from turmeric to be employed for decorative markings, have also spread to use outside of their cultural context, according to Dr. Vashi. She said that the complications of these two cosmetic practices are shared, and stem largely from contact dermatitis.

Veena Nair/Moment/Getty Images

Hair oils, skin-lightening agents

Culturally-linked hair oils among patients from south Asia or Africa – or descendants from these areas – can damage hair in a variety of ways as well as cause contact dermatitis. The oils can also exacerbate existing skin diseases.

“Oils with high oleic acid, such as coconut or olive oils or shea butter, can worsen seborrheic dermatitis,” Dr. Vashi cautioned.

Of this list of dermatologic issues induced by culturally linked cosmetic practices, skin lightening agents might pose the most risk for permanent and irreversible complications. Dr. Vashi said that up to 70% of patients using lighteners develop complications, and there is a relationship between the severity of side effects as duration of use increases.

“The problem is that ingredients of many of these products, which are imported illegally and sold on the black market, are often not disclosed,” Dr. Vashi said. Some contain a high content of metals such as lead, copper, and iron, whether they are added intentionally or end up in the product because of poor quality control. For those developing adverse events associated with the products, the obvious treatment is discontinuation.

When patients are unwilling to discontinue any of the products that have led to dermatologic issues, Dr. Vashi encouraged physicians “to take a middle ground.” Simple avoidance can be challenging for practices that are culturally meaningful. In respecting cultural differences, she encouraged tolerance and compromise.

“Often these patients will be doing an alternative medication or intervention, but this does not mean that they are not accepting what we have to offer,” she said. She indicated that mutual respect will lead to better solutions.

The awareness of common cultural practices that can have a harmful impact on the skin is an area of practice that deserves more attention, Andrew F. Alexis, MD, vice-chair for diversity and inclusion in the department of dermatology at Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, said in an interview.

Men may think they are supportive of women in the workplace, but if you ask women, they say there is a discrepancy, according to W. Brad Johnson, PhD, a clinical psychologist and professor at the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md.

“We may think we are acting as allies to women because we believe in it, but it may not be showing up in the execution,” he said in a presentation at the virtual Advance PHM Gender Equity Conference.

Although women currently account for the majority of medical school students, they make up only 16% of the population of medical school deans, 18% of department chairs, and 25% of full professors, according to 2019 data from the Association of American Medical Colleges, Dr. Johnson said.

The “missing ingredient” in increasing the number of women in medical faculty positions is that women are less mentored. Some barriers to mentorship include men’s concerns that women will take offers of mentorship the wrong way, but “it is incredibly rare for women to make a false accusation” of harassment in a mentorship situation, said Dr. Johnson.

Dr. Johnson offered some guidance for how men can become better allies for women in the workplace through interpersonal allyship, public allyship, and systemic allyship.

Interpersonal allyship and opportunities for mentoring women in medicine start by building trust, friendship, and collegiality between men and women colleagues, Dr. Johnson explained.

He provided some guidance for men to “sharpen their gender intelligence,” which starts with listening. Surveys of women show that they would like male colleagues to be a sounding board, rather than simply offering to jump in with a fix for a problem. “Show humility,” he said, don’t be afraid to ask questions, and don’t assume that a colleague wants something in particular because she is a woman.

“A lot of men get stuck on breaking the ice and getting started with a mentoring conversation,” Dr. Johnson said. One way to is by telling a female colleague who gave an outstanding presentation, or has conducted outstanding research, that you want to keep her in your organization and that she is welcome to talk about her goals. Women appreciate mentoring as “a constellation” and a way to build support, and have one person introduce them to others who can build a network and promote opportunities for leadership. Also, he encouraged men to be open to feedback from female colleagues on how they can be more supportive in the workplace. Sincerity and genuine effort go a long way towards improving gender equity.

Public allyship can take many forms, including putting women center stage to share their own ideas, Dr. Johnson said. Surveys of women show that they often feel dismissed or slighted and not given credit for an idea that was ultimately presented by a male colleague, he noted. Instead, be a female colleague’s biggest fan, and put her in the spotlight if she is truly the expert on the topic at hand.

Women also may be hamstrung in acceding to leadership positions by the use of subjective evaluations, said Dr. Johnson. He cited a 2018 analysis of 81,000 performance evaluations by the Harvard Business Review in which the top positive term used to describe men was analytical, while the top positive term used to describe women was compassionate. “All these things go with pay and promotions, and they tend to disadvantage women,” he said.

Dr. Johnson provided two avenues for how men can effectively show up as allies for women in the workplace.

First, start at the top. CEOs and senior men in an organization have a unique opportunity to set an example and talk publicly about supporting and promoting women, said Dr. Johnson.

Second, work at the grassroots level. He encouraged men to educate themselves with gender equity workshops, and act as collaborators. “Don’t tell women how to do gender equity,” he said, but show up, be present, be mindful, and be patient if someone seems not to respond immediately to opportunities for mentoring or sponsorship.

“Claiming ally or mentor status with someone from a nondominant group may invoke power, privilege, or even ownership” without intention, he said. Instead, “Always let others label you and the nature of the relationship [such as ally or mentor].”

For more information about allyship, visit Dr. Johnson’s website, workplaceallies.com.

Men may think they are supportive of women in the workplace, but if you ask women, they say there is a discrepancy, according to W. Brad Johnson, PhD, a clinical psychologist and professor at the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md.

“We may think we are acting as allies to women because we believe in it, but it may not be showing up in the execution,” he said in a presentation at the virtual Advance PHM Gender Equity Conference.

Although women currently account for the majority of medical school students, they make up only 16% of the population of medical school deans, 18% of department chairs, and 25% of full professors, according to 2019 data from the Association of American Medical Colleges, Dr. Johnson said.

The “missing ingredient” in increasing the number of women in medical faculty positions is that women are less mentored. Some barriers to mentorship include men’s concerns that women will take offers of mentorship the wrong way, but “it is incredibly rare for women to make a false accusation” of harassment in a mentorship situation, said Dr. Johnson.

Dr. Johnson offered some guidance for how men can become better allies for women in the workplace through interpersonal allyship, public allyship, and systemic allyship.

Interpersonal allyship and opportunities for mentoring women in medicine start by building trust, friendship, and collegiality between men and women colleagues, Dr. Johnson explained.

He provided some guidance for men to “sharpen their gender intelligence,” which starts with listening. Surveys of women show that they would like male colleagues to be a sounding board, rather than simply offering to jump in with a fix for a problem. “Show humility,” he said, don’t be afraid to ask questions, and don’t assume that a colleague wants something in particular because she is a woman.

“A lot of men get stuck on breaking the ice and getting started with a mentoring conversation,” Dr. Johnson said. One way to is by telling a female colleague who gave an outstanding presentation, or has conducted outstanding research, that you want to keep her in your organization and that she is welcome to talk about her goals. Women appreciate mentoring as “a constellation” and a way to build support, and have one person introduce them to others who can build a network and promote opportunities for leadership. Also, he encouraged men to be open to feedback from female colleagues on how they can be more supportive in the workplace. Sincerity and genuine effort go a long way towards improving gender equity.

Public allyship can take many forms, including putting women center stage to share their own ideas, Dr. Johnson said. Surveys of women show that they often feel dismissed or slighted and not given credit for an idea that was ultimately presented by a male colleague, he noted. Instead, be a female colleague’s biggest fan, and put her in the spotlight if she is truly the expert on the topic at hand.

Women also may be hamstrung in acceding to leadership positions by the use of subjective evaluations, said Dr. Johnson. He cited a 2018 analysis of 81,000 performance evaluations by the Harvard Business Review in which the top positive term used to describe men was analytical, while the top positive term used to describe women was compassionate. “All these things go with pay and promotions, and they tend to disadvantage women,” he said.

Dr. Johnson provided two avenues for how men can effectively show up as allies for women in the workplace.

First, start at the top. CEOs and senior men in an organization have a unique opportunity to set an example and talk publicly about supporting and promoting women, said Dr. Johnson.

Second, work at the grassroots level. He encouraged men to educate themselves with gender equity workshops, and act as collaborators. “Don’t tell women how to do gender equity,” he said, but show up, be present, be mindful, and be patient if someone seems not to respond immediately to opportunities for mentoring or sponsorship.

“Claiming ally or mentor status with someone from a nondominant group may invoke power, privilege, or even ownership” without intention, he said. Instead, “Always let others label you and the nature of the relationship [such as ally or mentor].”

For more information about allyship, visit Dr. Johnson’s website, workplaceallies.com.

Men may think they are supportive of women in the workplace, but if you ask women, they say there is a discrepancy, according to W. Brad Johnson, PhD, a clinical psychologist and professor at the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md.

“We may think we are acting as allies to women because we believe in it, but it may not be showing up in the execution,” he said in a presentation at the virtual Advance PHM Gender Equity Conference.

Although women currently account for the majority of medical school students, they make up only 16% of the population of medical school deans, 18% of department chairs, and 25% of full professors, according to 2019 data from the Association of American Medical Colleges, Dr. Johnson said.

The “missing ingredient” in increasing the number of women in medical faculty positions is that women are less mentored. Some barriers to mentorship include men’s concerns that women will take offers of mentorship the wrong way, but “it is incredibly rare for women to make a false accusation” of harassment in a mentorship situation, said Dr. Johnson.

Dr. Johnson offered some guidance for how men can become better allies for women in the workplace through interpersonal allyship, public allyship, and systemic allyship.

Interpersonal allyship and opportunities for mentoring women in medicine start by building trust, friendship, and collegiality between men and women colleagues, Dr. Johnson explained.

He provided some guidance for men to “sharpen their gender intelligence,” which starts with listening. Surveys of women show that they would like male colleagues to be a sounding board, rather than simply offering to jump in with a fix for a problem. “Show humility,” he said, don’t be afraid to ask questions, and don’t assume that a colleague wants something in particular because she is a woman.

“A lot of men get stuck on breaking the ice and getting started with a mentoring conversation,” Dr. Johnson said. One way to is by telling a female colleague who gave an outstanding presentation, or has conducted outstanding research, that you want to keep her in your organization and that she is welcome to talk about her goals. Women appreciate mentoring as “a constellation” and a way to build support, and have one person introduce them to others who can build a network and promote opportunities for leadership. Also, he encouraged men to be open to feedback from female colleagues on how they can be more supportive in the workplace. Sincerity and genuine effort go a long way towards improving gender equity.

Public allyship can take many forms, including putting women center stage to share their own ideas, Dr. Johnson said. Surveys of women show that they often feel dismissed or slighted and not given credit for an idea that was ultimately presented by a male colleague, he noted. Instead, be a female colleague’s biggest fan, and put her in the spotlight if she is truly the expert on the topic at hand.

Women also may be hamstrung in acceding to leadership positions by the use of subjective evaluations, said Dr. Johnson. He cited a 2018 analysis of 81,000 performance evaluations by the Harvard Business Review in which the top positive term used to describe men was analytical, while the top positive term used to describe women was compassionate. “All these things go with pay and promotions, and they tend to disadvantage women,” he said.

Dr. Johnson provided two avenues for how men can effectively show up as allies for women in the workplace.

First, start at the top. CEOs and senior men in an organization have a unique opportunity to set an example and talk publicly about supporting and promoting women, said Dr. Johnson.

Second, work at the grassroots level. He encouraged men to educate themselves with gender equity workshops, and act as collaborators. “Don’t tell women how to do gender equity,” he said, but show up, be present, be mindful, and be patient if someone seems not to respond immediately to opportunities for mentoring or sponsorship.

“Claiming ally or mentor status with someone from a nondominant group may invoke power, privilege, or even ownership” without intention, he said. Instead, “Always let others label you and the nature of the relationship [such as ally or mentor].”

For more information about allyship, visit Dr. Johnson’s website, workplaceallies.com.

A ccording to the US Census Bureau, more than half of all Americans are projected to belong to a minority group, defined as any group other than non-Hispanic White alone, by 2044. ¹ Consequently, the United States rapidly is becoming a country in which the majority of citizens will have skin of color. Individuals with skin of color are of diverse ethnic backgrounds and include people of African, Latin American, Native American, Pacific Islander, and Asian descent, as well as interethnic backgrounds. ² Throughout the country, dermatologists along with primary care practitioners may be confronted with certain cutaneous conditions that have varying disease presentations or processes in patients with skin of color. It also is important to note that racial categories are socially rather than biologically constructed, and the term skin of color includes a wide variety of diverse skin types. Nevertheless, the current literature thoroughly supports unique pathophysiologic differences in skin of color as well as variations in disease manifestation compared to White patients. ^3-5 For example, the increased lability of melanosomes in skin of color patients, which increases their risk for postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, has been well documented. ^5-7 There are various dermatologic conditions that also occur with higher frequency and manifest uniquely in people with darker, more pigmented skin, ^7-9 and dermatologists, along with primary care physicians, should feel prepared to recognize and address them.

Extensive evidence also indicates that there are unique aspects to consider while managing certain skin diseases in patients with skin of color.^8,10,11 Consequently, as noted on the Skin of Color Society (SOCS) website, “[a]n increase in the body of dermatological literature concerning skin of color as well as the advancement of both basic science and clinical investigational research is necessary to meet the needs of the expanding skin of color population.”² In the meantime, current knowledge regarding cutaneous conditions that diversely or disproportionately affect skin of color should be actively disseminated to physicians in training. Although patients with skin of color should always have access to comprehensive care and knowledgeable practitioners, the current changes in national and regional demographics further underscore the need for a more thorough understanding of skin of color with regard to disease pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment.

Several studies have found that medical students in the United States are minimally exposed to dermatology in general compared to other clinical specialties,^12-14 which can easily lead to the underrecognition of disorders that may uniquely or disproportionately affect individuals with pigmented skin. Recent data showed that medical schools typically required fewer than 10 hours of dermatology instruction,¹² and on average, dermatologic training made up less than 1% of a medical student’s undergraduate medical education.^13,15,16 Consequently, less than 40% of primary care residents felt that their medical school curriculum adequately prepared them to manage common skin conditions.¹⁴ Although not all physicians should be expected to fully grasp the complexities of skin of color and its diagnostic and therapeutic implications, both practicing and training dermatologists have acknowledged a lack of exposure to skin of color. In one study, approximately 47% of dermatologists and dermatology residents reported that their medical training (medical school and/or residency) was inadequate in training them on skin conditions in Black patients. Furthermore, many who felt their training was lacking in skin of color identified the need for greater exposure to Black patients and training materials.¹⁵ The absence of comprehensive medical education regarding skin of color ultimately can be a disadvantage for both practitioners and patients, resulting in poorer outcomes. Furthermore, underrepresentation of skin of color may persist beyond undergraduate and graduate medical education. There also is evidence to suggest that noninclusion of skin of color pervades foundational dermatologic educational resources, including commonly used textbooks as well as continuing medical education disseminated at national conferences and meetings.¹⁷ Taken together, these findings highlight the need for more diverse and representative exposure to skin of color throughout medical training, which begins with a diverse inclusive undergraduate medical education in dermatology.

The objective of this study was to determine if the preclinical dermatology curriculum at 3 US medical schools provided adequate representation of skin of color patients in their didactic presentation slides.

Methods

Participants—Three US medical schools, a blend of private and public medical schools located across different geographic boundaries, agreed to participate in the study. All 3 institutions were current members of the American Medical Association (AMA) Accelerating Change in Medical Education consortium, whose primary goal is to create the medical school of the future and transform physician training.¹⁸ All 32 member institutions of the AMA consortium were contacted to request their participation in the study. As part of the consortium, these institutions have vowed to collectively work to develop and share the best models for educational advancement to improve care for patients, populations, and communities¹⁸ and would expectedly provide a more racially and ethnically inclusive curriculum than an institution not accountable to a group dedicated to identifying the best ways to deliver care for increasingly diverse communities.

Data Collection—Lectures were included if they were presented during dermatology preclinical courses in the 2015 to 2016 academic year. An uninvolved third party removed the names and identities of instructors to preserve anonymity. Two independent coders from different institutions extracted the data—lecture title, total number of clinical and histologic images, and number of skin of color images—from each of the anonymized lectures using a standardized coding form. We documented differences in skin of color noted in lectures and the disease context for the discussed differences, such as variations in clinical presentation, disease process, epidemiology/risk, and treatment between different skin phenotypes or ethnic groups. Photographs in which the coders were unable to differentiate whether the patient had skin of color were designated as indeterminate or unclear. Photographs appearing to represent Fitzpatrick skin types IV, V, and VI¹⁹ were categorically designated as skin of color, and those appearing to represent Fitzpatrick skin types I and II were described as not skin of color; however, images appearing to represent Fitzpatrick skin type III often were classified as not skin of color or indeterminate and occasionally skin of color. The Figure shows examples of images classified as skin of color, indeterminate, and not skin of color. Photographs often were classified as indeterminate due to poor lighting, close-up view photographs, or highlighted pathology obscuring the surrounding skin. We excluded duplicate photographs and histologic images from the analyses.

We also reviewed 19 conditions previously highlighted by the SOCS as areas of importance to skin of color patients.²⁰ The coders tracked how many of these conditions were noted in each lecture. Duplicate discussion of these conditions was not included in the analyses. Any discrepancies between coders were resolved through additional slide review and discussion. The final coded data with the agreed upon changes were used for statistical analyses. Recent national demographic data from the US Census Bureau in 2019 describe approximately 39.9% of the population as belonging to racial/ethnic groups other than non-Hispanic/Latinx White.²¹ Consequently, the standard for adequate representation for skin of color photographs was set at 35% for the purpose of this study.

Across all 3 institutions included in the study, the proportion of the total number of clinical photographs showing skin of color was 16% (290/1812). Eight percent of the total photographs (145/1812) were noted to be indeterminate (Table). For institution 1, 23.6% of photographs (155/658) showed skin of color, and 12.6% (83/658) were indeterminate. For institution 2, 13.1% (76/578) showed skin of color and 7.8% (45/578) were indeterminate. For institution 3, 10.2% (59/576) showed skin of color and 3% (17/576) were indeterminate.

Institutions 1, 2, and 3 had 18, 8, and 17 total dermatology lectures, respectively. Of the 19 conditions designated as areas of importance to skin of color patients by the SOCS, 16 (84.2%) were discussed by institution 1, 11 (57.9%) by institution 2, and 9 (47.4%) by institution 3 (eTable 1). Institution 3 did not include photographs of skin of color patients in its acne, psoriasis, or cutaneous malignancy lectures. Institution 1 also did not include any skin of color patients in its malignancy lecture. Lectures that focused on pigmentary disorders, atopic dermatitis, infectious conditions, and benign cutaneous neoplasms were more likely to display photographs of skin of color patients; for example, lectures that discussed infectious conditions, such as superficial mycoses, herpes viruses, human papillomavirus, syphilis, and atypical mycobacterial infections, were consistently among those with higher proportions of photographs of skin of color patients.

Throughout the entire preclinical dermatology course at all 3 institutions, of 2945 lecture slides, only 24 (0.8%) unique differences were noted between skin color and non–skin of color patients, with 10 total differences noted by institution 1, 6 by institution 2, and 8 by institution 3 (Table). The majority of these differences (19/24) were related to epidemiologic differences in prevalence among varying racial/ethnic groups, with only 5 instances highlighting differences in clinical presentation. There was only a single instance that elaborated on the underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms of the discussed difference. Of all 24 unique differences discussed, 8 were related to skin cancer, 3 were related to dermatitis, and 2 were related to the difference in manifestation of erythema in patients with darker skin (eTable 2).

Comment

The results of this study demonstrated that skin of color is underrepresented in the preclinical dermatology curriculum at these 3 institutions. Although only 16% of all included clinical photographs were of skin of color, individuals with skin of color will soon represent more than half of the total US population within the next 2 decades.¹ To increase representation of skin of color patients, teaching faculty should consciously and deliberately include more photographs of skin of color patients for a wider variety of common conditions, including atopic dermatitis and psoriasis, in addition to those that tend to disparately affect skin of color patients, such as pseudofolliculitis barbae or melasma. Furthermore, they also can incorporate more detailed discussions about important differences seen in skin of color patients.

More Skin of Color Photographs in Psoriasis Lectures—At institution 3, there were no skin of color patients included in the psoriasis lecture, even though there is considerable data in the literature indicating notable differences in the clinical presentation, quality-of-life impact, and treatment of psoriasis in skin of color patients.^11,22 There are multiple nuances in psoriasis manifestation in patients with skin of color, including less-conspicuous erythema in darker skin, higher degrees of dyspigmentation, and greater body surface area involvement. For Black patients with scalp psoriasis, the impact of hair texture, styling practices, and washing frequency are additional considerations that may impact disease severity and selection of topical therapy.¹¹ The lack of inclusion of any skin of color patients in the psoriasis lecture at one institution further underscores the pressing need to prioritize communities of color in medical education.

More Skin of Color Photographs in Cutaneous Malignancy Lectures—Similarly, while a lecturer at institution 2 noted that acral lentiginous melanoma accounts for a considerable proportion of melanoma among skin of color patients,²³ there was no mention of how melanoma generally is substantially more deadly in this population, potentially due to decreased awareness and inconsistent screening.²⁴ Furthermore, at institutions 1 and 3, there were no photographs or discussion of skin of color patients during the cutaneous malignancy lectures. Evidence shows that more emphasis is needed for melanoma screening and awareness in skin of color populations to improve survival outcomes,²⁴ and this begins with educating not only future dermatologists but all future physicians as well. The failure to include photographs of skin of color patients in discussions or lectures regarding cutaneous malignancies may serve to further perpetuate the harmful misperception that individuals with skin of color are unaffected by skin cancer.^25,26

Analysis of Skin of Color Photographs in Infectious Disease Lectures—In addition, lectures discussing infectious etiologies were among those with the highest proportion of skin of color photographs. This relatively disproportionate representation of skin of color compared to the other lectures may contribute to the development of harmful stereotypes or the stigmatization of skin of color patients. Although skin of color should continue to be represented in similar lectures, teaching faculty should remain mindful of the potential unintended impact from lectures including relatively disproportionate amounts of skin of color, particularly when other lectures may have sparse to absent representation of skin of color.

More Photographs Available for Education—Overall, our findings may help to inform changes to preclinical dermatology medical education at other institutions to create more inclusive and representative curricula for skin of color patients. The ability of instructors to provide visual representation of various dermatologic conditions may be limited by the photographs available in certain textbooks with few examples of patients with skin of color; however, concerns regarding the lack of skin of color representation in dermatology training is not a novel discussion.¹⁷ Although it is the responsibility of all dermatologists to advocate for the inclusion of skin of color, many dermatologists of color have been leading the way in this movement for decades, publishing several textbooks to document various skin conditions in those with darker skin types and discuss unique considerations for patients with skin of color.^27-29 Images from these textbooks can be utilized by programs to increase representation of skin of color in dermatology training. There also are multiple expanding online dermatologic databases, such as VisualDx, with an increasing focus on skin of color patients, some of which allow users to filter images by degree of skin pigmentation.³⁰ Moreover, instructors also can work to diversify their curricula by highlighting more of the SOCS conditions of importance to skin of color patients, which have since been renamed and highlighted on the Patient Dermatology Education section of the SOCS website.²⁰ These conditions, while not completely comprehensive, provide a useful starting point for medical educators to reevaluate for potential areas of improvement and inclusion.

There are several potential strategies that can be used to better represent skin of color in dermatologic preclinical medical education, including increasing awareness, especially among dermatology teaching faculty, of existing disparities in the representation of skin of color in the preclinical curricula. Additionally, all dermatology teaching materials could be reviewed at the department level prior to being disseminated to medical students to assess for instances in which skin of color could be prioritized for discussion or varying disease presentations in skin of color could be demonstrated. Finally, teaching faculty may consider photographing more clinical images of their skin of color patients to further develop a catalog of diverse images that can be used to teach students.

Study Limitations—Our study was unable to account for verbal discussion of skin of color not otherwise denoted or captured in lecture slides. Additional limitations include the utilization of Fitzpatrick skin types to describe and differentiate varying skin tones, as the Fitzpatrick scale originally was developed as a method to describe an individual’s response to UV exposure.¹⁹ The inability to further delineate the representation of darker skin types, such as those that may be classified as Fitzpatrick skin types V or VI,¹⁹ compared to those with lighter skin of color also was a limiting factor. This study was unable to assess for discussion of other common conditions affecting skin of color patients that were not listed as one of the priority conditions by SOCS. Photographs that were designated as indeterminate were difficult to elucidate as skin of color; however, it is possible that instructors may have verbally described these images as skin of color during lectures. Nonetheless, it may be beneficial for learners if teaching faculty were to clearly label instances where skin of color patients are shown or when notable differences are present.

Future studies would benefit from the inclusion of audio data from lectures, syllabi, and small group teaching materials from preclinical courses to more accurately assess representation of skin of color in dermatology training. Additionally, future studies also may expand to include images from lectures of overlapping clinical specialties, particularly infectious disease and rheumatology, to provide a broader assessment of skin of color exposure. Furthermore, repeat assessment may be beneficial to assess the longitudinal effectiveness of curricular changes at the institutions included in this study, comparing older lectures to more recent, updated lectures. This study also may be replicated at other medical schools to allow for wider comparison of curricula.

Acknowledgment—The authors wish to thank the institutions that offered and agreed to participate in this study with the hopes of improving medical education.

A ccording to the US Census Bureau, more than half of all Americans are projected to belong to a minority group, defined as any group other than non-Hispanic White alone, by 2044. ¹ Consequently, the United States rapidly is becoming a country in which the majority of citizens will have skin of color. Individuals with skin of color are of diverse ethnic backgrounds and include people of African, Latin American, Native American, Pacific Islander, and Asian descent, as well as interethnic backgrounds. ² Throughout the country, dermatologists along with primary care practitioners may be confronted with certain cutaneous conditions that have varying disease presentations or processes in patients with skin of color. It also is important to note that racial categories are socially rather than biologically constructed, and the term skin of color includes a wide variety of diverse skin types. Nevertheless, the current literature thoroughly supports unique pathophysiologic differences in skin of color as well as variations in disease manifestation compared to White patients. ^3-5 For example, the increased lability of melanosomes in skin of color patients, which increases their risk for postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, has been well documented. ^5-7 There are various dermatologic conditions that also occur with higher frequency and manifest uniquely in people with darker, more pigmented skin, ^7-9 and dermatologists, along with primary care physicians, should feel prepared to recognize and address them.

Extensive evidence also indicates that there are unique aspects to consider while managing certain skin diseases in patients with skin of color.^8,10,11 Consequently, as noted on the Skin of Color Society (SOCS) website, “[a]n increase in the body of dermatological literature concerning skin of color as well as the advancement of both basic science and clinical investigational research is necessary to meet the needs of the expanding skin of color population.”² In the meantime, current knowledge regarding cutaneous conditions that diversely or disproportionately affect skin of color should be actively disseminated to physicians in training. Although patients with skin of color should always have access to comprehensive care and knowledgeable practitioners, the current changes in national and regional demographics further underscore the need for a more thorough understanding of skin of color with regard to disease pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment.

Several studies have found that medical students in the United States are minimally exposed to dermatology in general compared to other clinical specialties,^12-14 which can easily lead to the underrecognition of disorders that may uniquely or disproportionately affect individuals with pigmented skin. Recent data showed that medical schools typically required fewer than 10 hours of dermatology instruction,¹² and on average, dermatologic training made up less than 1% of a medical student’s undergraduate medical education.^13,15,16 Consequently, less than 40% of primary care residents felt that their medical school curriculum adequately prepared them to manage common skin conditions.¹⁴ Although not all physicians should be expected to fully grasp the complexities of skin of color and its diagnostic and therapeutic implications, both practicing and training dermatologists have acknowledged a lack of exposure to skin of color. In one study, approximately 47% of dermatologists and dermatology residents reported that their medical training (medical school and/or residency) was inadequate in training them on skin conditions in Black patients. Furthermore, many who felt their training was lacking in skin of color identified the need for greater exposure to Black patients and training materials.¹⁵ The absence of comprehensive medical education regarding skin of color ultimately can be a disadvantage for both practitioners and patients, resulting in poorer outcomes. Furthermore, underrepresentation of skin of color may persist beyond undergraduate and graduate medical education. There also is evidence to suggest that noninclusion of skin of color pervades foundational dermatologic educational resources, including commonly used textbooks as well as continuing medical education disseminated at national conferences and meetings.¹⁷ Taken together, these findings highlight the need for more diverse and representative exposure to skin of color throughout medical training, which begins with a diverse inclusive undergraduate medical education in dermatology.

The objective of this study was to determine if the preclinical dermatology curriculum at 3 US medical schools provided adequate representation of skin of color patients in their didactic presentation slides.

Methods

Participants—Three US medical schools, a blend of private and public medical schools located across different geographic boundaries, agreed to participate in the study. All 3 institutions were current members of the American Medical Association (AMA) Accelerating Change in Medical Education consortium, whose primary goal is to create the medical school of the future and transform physician training.¹⁸ All 32 member institutions of the AMA consortium were contacted to request their participation in the study. As part of the consortium, these institutions have vowed to collectively work to develop and share the best models for educational advancement to improve care for patients, populations, and communities¹⁸ and would expectedly provide a more racially and ethnically inclusive curriculum than an institution not accountable to a group dedicated to identifying the best ways to deliver care for increasingly diverse communities.

Data Collection—Lectures were included if they were presented during dermatology preclinical courses in the 2015 to 2016 academic year. An uninvolved third party removed the names and identities of instructors to preserve anonymity. Two independent coders from different institutions extracted the data—lecture title, total number of clinical and histologic images, and number of skin of color images—from each of the anonymized lectures using a standardized coding form. We documented differences in skin of color noted in lectures and the disease context for the discussed differences, such as variations in clinical presentation, disease process, epidemiology/risk, and treatment between different skin phenotypes or ethnic groups. Photographs in which the coders were unable to differentiate whether the patient had skin of color were designated as indeterminate or unclear. Photographs appearing to represent Fitzpatrick skin types IV, V, and VI¹⁹ were categorically designated as skin of color, and those appearing to represent Fitzpatrick skin types I and II were described as not skin of color; however, images appearing to represent Fitzpatrick skin type III often were classified as not skin of color or indeterminate and occasionally skin of color. The Figure shows examples of images classified as skin of color, indeterminate, and not skin of color. Photographs often were classified as indeterminate due to poor lighting, close-up view photographs, or highlighted pathology obscuring the surrounding skin. We excluded duplicate photographs and histologic images from the analyses.

We also reviewed 19 conditions previously highlighted by the SOCS as areas of importance to skin of color patients.²⁰ The coders tracked how many of these conditions were noted in each lecture. Duplicate discussion of these conditions was not included in the analyses. Any discrepancies between coders were resolved through additional slide review and discussion. The final coded data with the agreed upon changes were used for statistical analyses. Recent national demographic data from the US Census Bureau in 2019 describe approximately 39.9% of the population as belonging to racial/ethnic groups other than non-Hispanic/Latinx White.²¹ Consequently, the standard for adequate representation for skin of color photographs was set at 35% for the purpose of this study.

Across all 3 institutions included in the study, the proportion of the total number of clinical photographs showing skin of color was 16% (290/1812). Eight percent of the total photographs (145/1812) were noted to be indeterminate (Table). For institution 1, 23.6% of photographs (155/658) showed skin of color, and 12.6% (83/658) were indeterminate. For institution 2, 13.1% (76/578) showed skin of color and 7.8% (45/578) were indeterminate. For institution 3, 10.2% (59/576) showed skin of color and 3% (17/576) were indeterminate.

Institutions 1, 2, and 3 had 18, 8, and 17 total dermatology lectures, respectively. Of the 19 conditions designated as areas of importance to skin of color patients by the SOCS, 16 (84.2%) were discussed by institution 1, 11 (57.9%) by institution 2, and 9 (47.4%) by institution 3 (eTable 1). Institution 3 did not include photographs of skin of color patients in its acne, psoriasis, or cutaneous malignancy lectures. Institution 1 also did not include any skin of color patients in its malignancy lecture. Lectures that focused on pigmentary disorders, atopic dermatitis, infectious conditions, and benign cutaneous neoplasms were more likely to display photographs of skin of color patients; for example, lectures that discussed infectious conditions, such as superficial mycoses, herpes viruses, human papillomavirus, syphilis, and atypical mycobacterial infections, were consistently among those with higher proportions of photographs of skin of color patients.

Throughout the entire preclinical dermatology course at all 3 institutions, of 2945 lecture slides, only 24 (0.8%) unique differences were noted between skin color and non–skin of color patients, with 10 total differences noted by institution 1, 6 by institution 2, and 8 by institution 3 (Table). The majority of these differences (19/24) were related to epidemiologic differences in prevalence among varying racial/ethnic groups, with only 5 instances highlighting differences in clinical presentation. There was only a single instance that elaborated on the underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms of the discussed difference. Of all 24 unique differences discussed, 8 were related to skin cancer, 3 were related to dermatitis, and 2 were related to the difference in manifestation of erythema in patients with darker skin (eTable 2).

Comment

The results of this study demonstrated that skin of color is underrepresented in the preclinical dermatology curriculum at these 3 institutions. Although only 16% of all included clinical photographs were of skin of color, individuals with skin of color will soon represent more than half of the total US population within the next 2 decades.¹ To increase representation of skin of color patients, teaching faculty should consciously and deliberately include more photographs of skin of color patients for a wider variety of common conditions, including atopic dermatitis and psoriasis, in addition to those that tend to disparately affect skin of color patients, such as pseudofolliculitis barbae or melasma. Furthermore, they also can incorporate more detailed discussions about important differences seen in skin of color patients.

More Skin of Color Photographs in Psoriasis Lectures—At institution 3, there were no skin of color patients included in the psoriasis lecture, even though there is considerable data in the literature indicating notable differences in the clinical presentation, quality-of-life impact, and treatment of psoriasis in skin of color patients.^11,22 There are multiple nuances in psoriasis manifestation in patients with skin of color, including less-conspicuous erythema in darker skin, higher degrees of dyspigmentation, and greater body surface area involvement. For Black patients with scalp psoriasis, the impact of hair texture, styling practices, and washing frequency are additional considerations that may impact disease severity and selection of topical therapy.¹¹ The lack of inclusion of any skin of color patients in the psoriasis lecture at one institution further underscores the pressing need to prioritize communities of color in medical education.

More Skin of Color Photographs in Cutaneous Malignancy Lectures—Similarly, while a lecturer at institution 2 noted that acral lentiginous melanoma accounts for a considerable proportion of melanoma among skin of color patients,²³ there was no mention of how melanoma generally is substantially more deadly in this population, potentially due to decreased awareness and inconsistent screening.²⁴ Furthermore, at institutions 1 and 3, there were no photographs or discussion of skin of color patients during the cutaneous malignancy lectures. Evidence shows that more emphasis is needed for melanoma screening and awareness in skin of color populations to improve survival outcomes,²⁴ and this begins with educating not only future dermatologists but all future physicians as well. The failure to include photographs of skin of color patients in discussions or lectures regarding cutaneous malignancies may serve to further perpetuate the harmful misperception that individuals with skin of color are unaffected by skin cancer.^25,26

Analysis of Skin of Color Photographs in Infectious Disease Lectures—In addition, lectures discussing infectious etiologies were among those with the highest proportion of skin of color photographs. This relatively disproportionate representation of skin of color compared to the other lectures may contribute to the development of harmful stereotypes or the stigmatization of skin of color patients. Although skin of color should continue to be represented in similar lectures, teaching faculty should remain mindful of the potential unintended impact from lectures including relatively disproportionate amounts of skin of color, particularly when other lectures may have sparse to absent representation of skin of color.

More Photographs Available for Education—Overall, our findings may help to inform changes to preclinical dermatology medical education at other institutions to create more inclusive and representative curricula for skin of color patients. The ability of instructors to provide visual representation of various dermatologic conditions may be limited by the photographs available in certain textbooks with few examples of patients with skin of color; however, concerns regarding the lack of skin of color representation in dermatology training is not a novel discussion.¹⁷ Although it is the responsibility of all dermatologists to advocate for the inclusion of skin of color, many dermatologists of color have been leading the way in this movement for decades, publishing several textbooks to document various skin conditions in those with darker skin types and discuss unique considerations for patients with skin of color.^27-29 Images from these textbooks can be utilized by programs to increase representation of skin of color in dermatology training. There also are multiple expanding online dermatologic databases, such as VisualDx, with an increasing focus on skin of color patients, some of which allow users to filter images by degree of skin pigmentation.³⁰ Moreover, instructors also can work to diversify their curricula by highlighting more of the SOCS conditions of importance to skin of color patients, which have since been renamed and highlighted on the Patient Dermatology Education section of the SOCS website.²⁰ These conditions, while not completely comprehensive, provide a useful starting point for medical educators to reevaluate for potential areas of improvement and inclusion.

There are several potential strategies that can be used to better represent skin of color in dermatologic preclinical medical education, including increasing awareness, especially among dermatology teaching faculty, of existing disparities in the representation of skin of color in the preclinical curricula. Additionally, all dermatology teaching materials could be reviewed at the department level prior to being disseminated to medical students to assess for instances in which skin of color could be prioritized for discussion or varying disease presentations in skin of color could be demonstrated. Finally, teaching faculty may consider photographing more clinical images of their skin of color patients to further develop a catalog of diverse images that can be used to teach students.

Study Limitations—Our study was unable to account for verbal discussion of skin of color not otherwise denoted or captured in lecture slides. Additional limitations include the utilization of Fitzpatrick skin types to describe and differentiate varying skin tones, as the Fitzpatrick scale originally was developed as a method to describe an individual’s response to UV exposure.¹⁹ The inability to further delineate the representation of darker skin types, such as those that may be classified as Fitzpatrick skin types V or VI,¹⁹ compared to those with lighter skin of color also was a limiting factor. This study was unable to assess for discussion of other common conditions affecting skin of color patients that were not listed as one of the priority conditions by SOCS. Photographs that were designated as indeterminate were difficult to elucidate as skin of color; however, it is possible that instructors may have verbally described these images as skin of color during lectures. Nonetheless, it may be beneficial for learners if teaching faculty were to clearly label instances where skin of color patients are shown or when notable differences are present.

Future studies would benefit from the inclusion of audio data from lectures, syllabi, and small group teaching materials from preclinical courses to more accurately assess representation of skin of color in dermatology training. Additionally, future studies also may expand to include images from lectures of overlapping clinical specialties, particularly infectious disease and rheumatology, to provide a broader assessment of skin of color exposure. Furthermore, repeat assessment may be beneficial to assess the longitudinal effectiveness of curricular changes at the institutions included in this study, comparing older lectures to more recent, updated lectures. This study also may be replicated at other medical schools to allow for wider comparison of curricula.

Acknowledgment—The authors wish to thank the institutions that offered and agreed to participate in this study with the hopes of improving medical education.

A ccording to the US Census Bureau, more than half of all Americans are projected to belong to a minority group, defined as any group other than non-Hispanic White alone, by 2044. ¹ Consequently, the United States rapidly is becoming a country in which the majority of citizens will have skin of color. Individuals with skin of color are of diverse ethnic backgrounds and include people of African, Latin American, Native American, Pacific Islander, and Asian descent, as well as interethnic backgrounds. ² Throughout the country, dermatologists along with primary care practitioners may be confronted with certain cutaneous conditions that have varying disease presentations or processes in patients with skin of color. It also is important to note that racial categories are socially rather than biologically constructed, and the term skin of color includes a wide variety of diverse skin types. Nevertheless, the current literature thoroughly supports unique pathophysiologic differences in skin of color as well as variations in disease manifestation compared to White patients. ^3-5 For example, the increased lability of melanosomes in skin of color patients, which increases their risk for postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, has been well documented. ^5-7 There are various dermatologic conditions that also occur with higher frequency and manifest uniquely in people with darker, more pigmented skin, ^7-9 and dermatologists, along with primary care physicians, should feel prepared to recognize and address them.

Extensive evidence also indicates that there are unique aspects to consider while managing certain skin diseases in patients with skin of color.^8,10,11 Consequently, as noted on the Skin of Color Society (SOCS) website, “[a]n increase in the body of dermatological literature concerning skin of color as well as the advancement of both basic science and clinical investigational research is necessary to meet the needs of the expanding skin of color population.”² In the meantime, current knowledge regarding cutaneous conditions that diversely or disproportionately affect skin of color should be actively disseminated to physicians in training. Although patients with skin of color should always have access to comprehensive care and knowledgeable practitioners, the current changes in national and regional demographics further underscore the need for a more thorough understanding of skin of color with regard to disease pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment.

Several studies have found that medical students in the United States are minimally exposed to dermatology in general compared to other clinical specialties,^12-14 which can easily lead to the underrecognition of disorders that may uniquely or disproportionately affect individuals with pigmented skin. Recent data showed that medical schools typically required fewer than 10 hours of dermatology instruction,¹² and on average, dermatologic training made up less than 1% of a medical student’s undergraduate medical education.^13,15,16 Consequently, less than 40% of primary care residents felt that their medical school curriculum adequately prepared them to manage common skin conditions.¹⁴ Although not all physicians should be expected to fully grasp the complexities of skin of color and its diagnostic and therapeutic implications, both practicing and training dermatologists have acknowledged a lack of exposure to skin of color. In one study, approximately 47% of dermatologists and dermatology residents reported that their medical training (medical school and/or residency) was inadequate in training them on skin conditions in Black patients. Furthermore, many who felt their training was lacking in skin of color identified the need for greater exposure to Black patients and training materials.¹⁵ The absence of comprehensive medical education regarding skin of color ultimately can be a disadvantage for both practitioners and patients, resulting in poorer outcomes. Furthermore, underrepresentation of skin of color may persist beyond undergraduate and graduate medical education. There also is evidence to suggest that noninclusion of skin of color pervades foundational dermatologic educational resources, including commonly used textbooks as well as continuing medical education disseminated at national conferences and meetings.¹⁷ Taken together, these findings highlight the need for more diverse and representative exposure to skin of color throughout medical training, which begins with a diverse inclusive undergraduate medical education in dermatology.

The objective of this study was to determine if the preclinical dermatology curriculum at 3 US medical schools provided adequate representation of skin of color patients in their didactic presentation slides.

Methods

Participants—Three US medical schools, a blend of private and public medical schools located across different geographic boundaries, agreed to participate in the study. All 3 institutions were current members of the American Medical Association (AMA) Accelerating Change in Medical Education consortium, whose primary goal is to create the medical school of the future and transform physician training.¹⁸ All 32 member institutions of the AMA consortium were contacted to request their participation in the study. As part of the consortium, these institutions have vowed to collectively work to develop and share the best models for educational advancement to improve care for patients, populations, and communities¹⁸ and would expectedly provide a more racially and ethnically inclusive curriculum than an institution not accountable to a group dedicated to identifying the best ways to deliver care for increasingly diverse communities.

Data Collection—Lectures were included if they were presented during dermatology preclinical courses in the 2015 to 2016 academic year. An uninvolved third party removed the names and identities of instructors to preserve anonymity. Two independent coders from different institutions extracted the data—lecture title, total number of clinical and histologic images, and number of skin of color images—from each of the anonymized lectures using a standardized coding form. We documented differences in skin of color noted in lectures and the disease context for the discussed differences, such as variations in clinical presentation, disease process, epidemiology/risk, and treatment between different skin phenotypes or ethnic groups. Photographs in which the coders were unable to differentiate whether the patient had skin of color were designated as indeterminate or unclear. Photographs appearing to represent Fitzpatrick skin types IV, V, and VI¹⁹ were categorically designated as skin of color, and those appearing to represent Fitzpatrick skin types I and II were described as not skin of color; however, images appearing to represent Fitzpatrick skin type III often were classified as not skin of color or indeterminate and occasionally skin of color. The Figure shows examples of images classified as skin of color, indeterminate, and not skin of color. Photographs often were classified as indeterminate due to poor lighting, close-up view photographs, or highlighted pathology obscuring the surrounding skin. We excluded duplicate photographs and histologic images from the analyses.

We also reviewed 19 conditions previously highlighted by the SOCS as areas of importance to skin of color patients.²⁰ The coders tracked how many of these conditions were noted in each lecture. Duplicate discussion of these conditions was not included in the analyses. Any discrepancies between coders were resolved through additional slide review and discussion. The final coded data with the agreed upon changes were used for statistical analyses. Recent national demographic data from the US Census Bureau in 2019 describe approximately 39.9% of the population as belonging to racial/ethnic groups other than non-Hispanic/Latinx White.²¹ Consequently, the standard for adequate representation for skin of color photographs was set at 35% for the purpose of this study.

Across all 3 institutions included in the study, the proportion of the total number of clinical photographs showing skin of color was 16% (290/1812). Eight percent of the total photographs (145/1812) were noted to be indeterminate (Table). For institution 1, 23.6% of photographs (155/658) showed skin of color, and 12.6% (83/658) were indeterminate. For institution 2, 13.1% (76/578) showed skin of color and 7.8% (45/578) were indeterminate. For institution 3, 10.2% (59/576) showed skin of color and 3% (17/576) were indeterminate.

Institutions 1, 2, and 3 had 18, 8, and 17 total dermatology lectures, respectively. Of the 19 conditions designated as areas of importance to skin of color patients by the SOCS, 16 (84.2%) were discussed by institution 1, 11 (57.9%) by institution 2, and 9 (47.4%) by institution 3 (eTable 1). Institution 3 did not include photographs of skin of color patients in its acne, psoriasis, or cutaneous malignancy lectures. Institution 1 also did not include any skin of color patients in its malignancy lecture. Lectures that focused on pigmentary disorders, atopic dermatitis, infectious conditions, and benign cutaneous neoplasms were more likely to display photographs of skin of color patients; for example, lectures that discussed infectious conditions, such as superficial mycoses, herpes viruses, human papillomavirus, syphilis, and atypical mycobacterial infections, were consistently among those with higher proportions of photographs of skin of color patients.

Throughout the entire preclinical dermatology course at all 3 institutions, of 2945 lecture slides, only 24 (0.8%) unique differences were noted between skin color and non–skin of color patients, with 10 total differences noted by institution 1, 6 by institution 2, and 8 by institution 3 (Table). The majority of these differences (19/24) were related to epidemiologic differences in prevalence among varying racial/ethnic groups, with only 5 instances highlighting differences in clinical presentation. There was only a single instance that elaborated on the underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms of the discussed difference. Of all 24 unique differences discussed, 8 were related to skin cancer, 3 were related to dermatitis, and 2 were related to the difference in manifestation of erythema in patients with darker skin (eTable 2).

Comment

The results of this study demonstrated that skin of color is underrepresented in the preclinical dermatology curriculum at these 3 institutions. Although only 16% of all included clinical photographs were of skin of color, individuals with skin of color will soon represent more than half of the total US population within the next 2 decades.¹ To increase representation of skin of color patients, teaching faculty should consciously and deliberately include more photographs of skin of color patients for a wider variety of common conditions, including atopic dermatitis and psoriasis, in addition to those that tend to disparately affect skin of color patients, such as pseudofolliculitis barbae or melasma. Furthermore, they also can incorporate more detailed discussions about important differences seen in skin of color patients.

More Skin of Color Photographs in Psoriasis Lectures—At institution 3, there were no skin of color patients included in the psoriasis lecture, even though there is considerable data in the literature indicating notable differences in the clinical presentation, quality-of-life impact, and treatment of psoriasis in skin of color patients.^11,22 There are multiple nuances in psoriasis manifestation in patients with skin of color, including less-conspicuous erythema in darker skin, higher degrees of dyspigmentation, and greater body surface area involvement. For Black patients with scalp psoriasis, the impact of hair texture, styling practices, and washing frequency are additional considerations that may impact disease severity and selection of topical therapy.¹¹ The lack of inclusion of any skin of color patients in the psoriasis lecture at one institution further underscores the pressing need to prioritize communities of color in medical education.

More Skin of Color Photographs in Cutaneous Malignancy Lectures—Similarly, while a lecturer at institution 2 noted that acral lentiginous melanoma accounts for a considerable proportion of melanoma among skin of color patients,²³ there was no mention of how melanoma generally is substantially more deadly in this population, potentially due to decreased awareness and inconsistent screening.²⁴ Furthermore, at institutions 1 and 3, there were no photographs or discussion of skin of color patients during the cutaneous malignancy lectures. Evidence shows that more emphasis is needed for melanoma screening and awareness in skin of color populations to improve survival outcomes,²⁴ and this begins with educating not only future dermatologists but all future physicians as well. The failure to include photographs of skin of color patients in discussions or lectures regarding cutaneous malignancies may serve to further perpetuate the harmful misperception that individuals with skin of color are unaffected by skin cancer.^25,26

Analysis of Skin of Color Photographs in Infectious Disease Lectures—In addition, lectures discussing infectious etiologies were among those with the highest proportion of skin of color photographs. This relatively disproportionate representation of skin of color compared to the other lectures may contribute to the development of harmful stereotypes or the stigmatization of skin of color patients. Although skin of color should continue to be represented in similar lectures, teaching faculty should remain mindful of the potential unintended impact from lectures including relatively disproportionate amounts of skin of color, particularly when other lectures may have sparse to absent representation of skin of color.

More Photographs Available for Education—Overall, our findings may help to inform changes to preclinical dermatology medical education at other institutions to create more inclusive and representative curricula for skin of color patients. The ability of instructors to provide visual representation of various dermatologic conditions may be limited by the photographs available in certain textbooks with few examples of patients with skin of color; however, concerns regarding the lack of skin of color representation in dermatology training is not a novel discussion.¹⁷ Although it is the responsibility of all dermatologists to advocate for the inclusion of skin of color, many dermatologists of color have been leading the way in this movement for decades, publishing several textbooks to document various skin conditions in those with darker skin types and discuss unique considerations for patients with skin of color.^27-29 Images from these textbooks can be utilized by programs to increase representation of skin of color in dermatology training. There also are multiple expanding online dermatologic databases, such as VisualDx, with an increasing focus on skin of color patients, some of which allow users to filter images by degree of skin pigmentation.³⁰ Moreover, instructors also can work to diversify their curricula by highlighting more of the SOCS conditions of importance to skin of color patients, which have since been renamed and highlighted on the Patient Dermatology Education section of the SOCS website.²⁰ These conditions, while not completely comprehensive, provide a useful starting point for medical educators to reevaluate for potential areas of improvement and inclusion.

There are several potential strategies that can be used to better represent skin of color in dermatologic preclinical medical education, including increasing awareness, especially among dermatology teaching faculty, of existing disparities in the representation of skin of color in the preclinical curricula. Additionally, all dermatology teaching materials could be reviewed at the department level prior to being disseminated to medical students to assess for instances in which skin of color could be prioritized for discussion or varying disease presentations in skin of color could be demonstrated. Finally, teaching faculty may consider photographing more clinical images of their skin of color patients to further develop a catalog of diverse images that can be used to teach students.

Study Limitations—Our study was unable to account for verbal discussion of skin of color not otherwise denoted or captured in lecture slides. Additional limitations include the utilization of Fitzpatrick skin types to describe and differentiate varying skin tones, as the Fitzpatrick scale originally was developed as a method to describe an individual’s response to UV exposure.¹⁹ The inability to further delineate the representation of darker skin types, such as those that may be classified as Fitzpatrick skin types V or VI,¹⁹ compared to those with lighter skin of color also was a limiting factor. This study was unable to assess for discussion of other common conditions affecting skin of color patients that were not listed as one of the priority conditions by SOCS. Photographs that were designated as indeterminate were difficult to elucidate as skin of color; however, it is possible that instructors may have verbally described these images as skin of color during lectures. Nonetheless, it may be beneficial for learners if teaching faculty were to clearly label instances where skin of color patients are shown or when notable differences are present.

Future studies would benefit from the inclusion of audio data from lectures, syllabi, and small group teaching materials from preclinical courses to more accurately assess representation of skin of color in dermatology training. Additionally, future studies also may expand to include images from lectures of overlapping clinical specialties, particularly infectious disease and rheumatology, to provide a broader assessment of skin of color exposure. Furthermore, repeat assessment may be beneficial to assess the longitudinal effectiveness of curricular changes at the institutions included in this study, comparing older lectures to more recent, updated lectures. This study also may be replicated at other medical schools to allow for wider comparison of curricula.

Acknowledgment—The authors wish to thank the institutions that offered and agreed to participate in this study with the hopes of improving medical education.

Many potential leaders in academic medicine go unidentified, and finding those leaders is key to improving gender equity in academic medicine, said Nancy Spector, MD, in a presentation at the virtual Advance PHM Gender Equity Conference.

“I think it is important to reframe what it means to be a leader, and to empower yourself to think of yourself as a leader,” said Dr. Spector, executive director for executive leadership in academic medicine program at Drexel University, Philadelphia.

“Some of the best leaders I know do not have titles,” she emphasized.

Steps to stimulate the system changes needed to promote gender equity include building policies around the life cycle, revising departmental and division governance, and tracking metrics at the individual, departmental, and organizational level, Dr. Spector said.

Aligning gender-equity efforts with institutional priorities and navigating politics to effect changes in the gender equity landscape are ongoing objectives, she said.

Dr. Spector offered advice to men and women looking to shift the system and promote gender equity. She emphasized the challenge of overcoming psychological associations of men and women in leadership roles. “Men are more often associated with agentic qualities, which convey assertion and control,” she said. Men in leadership are more often described as aggressive, ambitious, dominant, self-confident, forceful, self-reliant, and individualistic.

By contrast, “women are associated with communal qualities, which convey a concern for compassionate treatment of others,” and are more often described as affectionate, helpful, kind, sympathetic, sensitive, gentle, and well spoken, she noted.

Although agentic traits are most often associated with effective leadership, in fact, “the most effective contemporary leaders have both agentic and communal traits,” said Dr. Spector.

However, “if a woman leader is very communal, she may be viewed as not assertive enough, and it she is highly agentic, she is criticized for being too domineering or controlling,” she said.

To help get past these associations, changes are needed at the individual level, leader level, and institutional level, Dr. Spector said.

On the individual level, women seeking to improve the situation for gender equity should engage with male allies and build a pipeline of mentorship and sponsorship to help identify future leaders, she said.

Women and men should obtain leadership training, and “become a student of leadership,” she advised. “Be in a learning mode,” and then think how to apply what you have learned, which may include setting challenging learning goals, experimenting with alternative strategies, learning about different leadership styles, and learning about differences in leaders’ values and attitudes.

For women, being pulled in many directions is the norm. “Are you being strategic with how you serve on committees?” Dr. Spector asked.

Make the most of how you choose to share your time, and “garner the skill of graceful self-promotion, which is often a hard skill for women,” she noted. She also urged women to make the most of professional networking and social capital.

At the leader level, the advice Dr. Spector offered to leaders on building gender equity in their institutions include ensuring a critical mass of women in leadership track positions. “Avoid having a sole woman member of a team,” she said.

Dr. Spector also emphasized the importance of giving employees with family responsibilities more time for promotion, and welcoming back women who step away from the workforce and choose to return. Encourage men to participate in family-friendly benefits. “Standardize processes that support the life cycle of a faculty member or the person you’re hiring,” and ensure inclusive times and venues for major meetings, committee work, and social events, she added.

Dr. Spector’s strategies for institutions include quantifying disparities by using real time dashboards to show both leading and lagging indicators, setting goals, and measuring achievements.

“Create an infrastructure to support women’s leadership,” she said. Such an infrastructure could include not only robust committees for women in science and medicine, but also supporting women to attend leadership training both inside and outside their institutions.

Dr. Spector noted that professional organizations also have a role to play in support of women’s leadership.

“Make a public pledge to gender equity,” she said. She encouraged professional organizations to tie diversity and inclusion metrics to performance reviews, and to prioritize the examination and mitigation of disparities, and report challenges and successes.

When creating policies to promote gender equity, “get out of your silo,” Dr. Spector emphasized. Understand the drivers rather than simply judging the behaviors.

“Even if we disagree on something, we need to work together, and empower everyone to be thoughtful drivers of change,” she concluded.

Dr. Spector disclosed grant funding from the Department of Health & Human Services, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. She also disclosed receiving monetary awards, honoraria, and travel reimbursement from multiple academic and professional organization for teaching and consulting programs. Dr. Spector also cofunded and holds equity interest in the I-PASS Patient Safety Institute, a company created to assist institutions in implementing the I-PASS Handoff Program.

Many potential leaders in academic medicine go unidentified, and finding those leaders is key to improving gender equity in academic medicine, said Nancy Spector, MD, in a presentation at the virtual Advance PHM Gender Equity Conference.

“I think it is important to reframe what it means to be a leader, and to empower yourself to think of yourself as a leader,” said Dr. Spector, executive director for executive leadership in academic medicine program at Drexel University, Philadelphia.

“Some of the best leaders I know do not have titles,” she emphasized.

Steps to stimulate the system changes needed to promote gender equity include building policies around the life cycle, revising departmental and division governance, and tracking metrics at the individual, departmental, and organizational level, Dr. Spector said.

Aligning gender-equity efforts with institutional priorities and navigating politics to effect changes in the gender equity landscape are ongoing objectives, she said.

Dr. Spector offered advice to men and women looking to shift the system and promote gender equity. She emphasized the challenge of overcoming psychological associations of men and women in leadership roles. “Men are more often associated with agentic qualities, which convey assertion and control,” she said. Men in leadership are more often described as aggressive, ambitious, dominant, self-confident, forceful, self-reliant, and individualistic.

By contrast, “women are associated with communal qualities, which convey a concern for compassionate treatment of others,” and are more often described as affectionate, helpful, kind, sympathetic, sensitive, gentle, and well spoken, she noted.

Although agentic traits are most often associated with effective leadership, in fact, “the most effective contemporary leaders have both agentic and communal traits,” said Dr. Spector.

However, “if a woman leader is very communal, she may be viewed as not assertive enough, and it she is highly agentic, she is criticized for being too domineering or controlling,” she said.

To help get past these associations, changes are needed at the individual level, leader level, and institutional level, Dr. Spector said.

On the individual level, women seeking to improve the situation for gender equity should engage with male allies and build a pipeline of mentorship and sponsorship to help identify future leaders, she said.

Women and men should obtain leadership training, and “become a student of leadership,” she advised. “Be in a learning mode,” and then think how to apply what you have learned, which may include setting challenging learning goals, experimenting with alternative strategies, learning about different leadership styles, and learning about differences in leaders’ values and attitudes.

For women, being pulled in many directions is the norm. “Are you being strategic with how you serve on committees?” Dr. Spector asked.

Make the most of how you choose to share your time, and “garner the skill of graceful self-promotion, which is often a hard skill for women,” she noted. She also urged women to make the most of professional networking and social capital.

At the leader level, the advice Dr. Spector offered to leaders on building gender equity in their institutions include ensuring a critical mass of women in leadership track positions. “Avoid having a sole woman member of a team,” she said.

Dr. Spector also emphasized the importance of giving employees with family responsibilities more time for promotion, and welcoming back women who step away from the workforce and choose to return. Encourage men to participate in family-friendly benefits. “Standardize processes that support the life cycle of a faculty member or the person you’re hiring,” and ensure inclusive times and venues for major meetings, committee work, and social events, she added.

Dr. Spector’s strategies for institutions include quantifying disparities by using real time dashboards to show both leading and lagging indicators, setting goals, and measuring achievements.

“Create an infrastructure to support women’s leadership,” she said. Such an infrastructure could include not only robust committees for women in science and medicine, but also supporting women to attend leadership training both inside and outside their institutions.

Dr. Spector noted that professional organizations also have a role to play in support of women’s leadership.

“Make a public pledge to gender equity,” she said. She encouraged professional organizations to tie diversity and inclusion metrics to performance reviews, and to prioritize the examination and mitigation of disparities, and report challenges and successes.

When creating policies to promote gender equity, “get out of your silo,” Dr. Spector emphasized. Understand the drivers rather than simply judging the behaviors.

“Even if we disagree on something, we need to work together, and empower everyone to be thoughtful drivers of change,” she concluded.

Dr. Spector disclosed grant funding from the Department of Health & Human Services, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. She also disclosed receiving monetary awards, honoraria, and travel reimbursement from multiple academic and professional organization for teaching and consulting programs. Dr. Spector also cofunded and holds equity interest in the I-PASS Patient Safety Institute, a company created to assist institutions in implementing the I-PASS Handoff Program.

Many potential leaders in academic medicine go unidentified, and finding those leaders is key to improving gender equity in academic medicine, said Nancy Spector, MD, in a presentation at the virtual Advance PHM Gender Equity Conference.

“I think it is important to reframe what it means to be a leader, and to empower yourself to think of yourself as a leader,” said Dr. Spector, executive director for executive leadership in academic medicine program at Drexel University, Philadelphia.

“Some of the best leaders I know do not have titles,” she emphasized.

Steps to stimulate the system changes needed to promote gender equity include building policies around the life cycle, revising departmental and division governance, and tracking metrics at the individual, departmental, and organizational level, Dr. Spector said.

Aligning gender-equity efforts with institutional priorities and navigating politics to effect changes in the gender equity landscape are ongoing objectives, she said.

Dr. Spector offered advice to men and women looking to shift the system and promote gender equity. She emphasized the challenge of overcoming psychological associations of men and women in leadership roles. “Men are more often associated with agentic qualities, which convey assertion and control,” she said. Men in leadership are more often described as aggressive, ambitious, dominant, self-confident, forceful, self-reliant, and individualistic.

By contrast, “women are associated with communal qualities, which convey a concern for compassionate treatment of others,” and are more often described as affectionate, helpful, kind, sympathetic, sensitive, gentle, and well spoken, she noted.

Although agentic traits are most often associated with effective leadership, in fact, “the most effective contemporary leaders have both agentic and communal traits,” said Dr. Spector.

However, “if a woman leader is very communal, she may be viewed as not assertive enough, and it she is highly agentic, she is criticized for being too domineering or controlling,” she said.

To help get past these associations, changes are needed at the individual level, leader level, and institutional level, Dr. Spector said.

On the individual level, women seeking to improve the situation for gender equity should engage with male allies and build a pipeline of mentorship and sponsorship to help identify future leaders, she said.

Women and men should obtain leadership training, and “become a student of leadership,” she advised. “Be in a learning mode,” and then think how to apply what you have learned, which may include setting challenging learning goals, experimenting with alternative strategies, learning about different leadership styles, and learning about differences in leaders’ values and attitudes.

For women, being pulled in many directions is the norm. “Are you being strategic with how you serve on committees?” Dr. Spector asked.

Make the most of how you choose to share your time, and “garner the skill of graceful self-promotion, which is often a hard skill for women,” she noted. She also urged women to make the most of professional networking and social capital.

At the leader level, the advice Dr. Spector offered to leaders on building gender equity in their institutions include ensuring a critical mass of women in leadership track positions. “Avoid having a sole woman member of a team,” she said.

Dr. Spector also emphasized the importance of giving employees with family responsibilities more time for promotion, and welcoming back women who step away from the workforce and choose to return. Encourage men to participate in family-friendly benefits. “Standardize processes that support the life cycle of a faculty member or the person you’re hiring,” and ensure inclusive times and venues for major meetings, committee work, and social events, she added.

Dr. Spector’s strategies for institutions include quantifying disparities by using real time dashboards to show both leading and lagging indicators, setting goals, and measuring achievements.

“Create an infrastructure to support women’s leadership,” she said. Such an infrastructure could include not only robust committees for women in science and medicine, but also supporting women to attend leadership training both inside and outside their institutions.

Dr. Spector noted that professional organizations also have a role to play in support of women’s leadership.

“Make a public pledge to gender equity,” she said. She encouraged professional organizations to tie diversity and inclusion metrics to performance reviews, and to prioritize the examination and mitigation of disparities, and report challenges and successes.

When creating policies to promote gender equity, “get out of your silo,” Dr. Spector emphasized. Understand the drivers rather than simply judging the behaviors.

“Even if we disagree on something, we need to work together, and empower everyone to be thoughtful drivers of change,” she concluded.

Dr. Spector disclosed grant funding from the Department of Health & Human Services, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. She also disclosed receiving monetary awards, honoraria, and travel reimbursement from multiple academic and professional organization for teaching and consulting programs. Dr. Spector also cofunded and holds equity interest in the I-PASS Patient Safety Institute, a company created to assist institutions in implementing the I-PASS Handoff Program.

Dr. Paula Braveman, director of the Center on Social Disparities in Health at the University of California, San Francisco, says her latest research revealed an “astounding” level of evidence that racism is a decisive “upstream” cause of higher rates of preterm birth among Black women.

The tipping point for Dr. Paula Braveman came when a longtime patient of hers at a community clinic in San Francisco’s Mission District slipped past the front desk and knocked on her office door to say goodbye. He wouldn’t be coming to the clinic anymore, he told her, because he could no longer afford it.

It was a decisive moment for Dr. Braveman, who decided she wanted not only to heal ailing patients but also to advocate for policies that would help them be healthier when they arrived at her clinic. In the nearly four decades since, Dr. Braveman has dedicated herself to studying the “social determinants of health” – how the spaces where we live, work, play and learn, and the relationships we have in those places influence how healthy we are.

As director of the Center on Social Disparities in Health at the University of California, San Francisco, Dr. Braveman has studied the link between neighborhood wealth and children’s health, and how access to insurance influences prenatal care. A longtime advocate of translating research into policy, she has collaborated on major health initiatives with the health department in San Francisco, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the World Health Organization.

Dr. Braveman has a particular interest in maternal and infant health. Her latest research reviews what’s known about the persistent gap in preterm birth rates between Black and White women in the United States. Black women are about 1.6 times as likely as White women to give birth more than three weeks before the due date. That statistic bears alarming and costly health consequences, as infants born prematurely are at higher risk for breathing, heart, and brain abnormalities, among other complications.

Dr. Braveman coauthored the review with a group of experts convened by the March of Dimes that included geneticists, clinicians, epidemiologists, biomedical experts, and neurologists. They examined more than two dozen suspected causes of preterm births – including quality of prenatal care, environmental toxics, chronic stress, poverty and obesity – and determined that racism, directly or indirectly, best explained the racial disparities in preterm birth rates.

(Note: In the review, the authors make extensive use of the terms “upstream” and “downstream” to describe what determines people’s health. A downstream risk is the condition or factor most directly responsible for a health outcome, while an upstream factor is what causes or fuels the downstream risk – and often what needs to change to prevent someone from becoming sick. For example, a person living near drinking water polluted with toxic chemicals might get sick from drinking the water. The downstream fix would be telling individuals to use filters. The upstream solution would be to stop the dumping of toxic chemicals.)

KHN spoke with Dr. Braveman about the study and its findings. The excerpts have been edited for length and style.
 

Q: You have been studying the issue of preterm birth and racial disparities for so long. Were there any findings from this review that surprised you?

The process of systematically going through all of the risk factors that are written about in the literature and then seeing how the story of racism was an upstream determinant for virtually all of them. That was kind of astounding.

The other thing that was very impressive: When we looked at the idea that genetic factors could be the cause of the Black-White disparity in preterm birth. The genetics experts in the group, and there were three or four of them, concluded from the evidence that genetic factors might influence the disparity in preterm birth, but at most the effect would be very small, very small indeed. This could not account for the greater rate of preterm birth among Black women compared to White women.
 

Q: You were looking to identify not just what causes preterm birth but also to explain racial differences in rates of preterm birth. Are there examples of factors that can influence preterm birth that don’t explain racial disparities?

It does look like there are genetic components to preterm birth, but they don’t explain the Black-White disparity in preterm birth. Another example is having an early elective C-section. That’s one of the problems contributing to avoidable preterm birth, but it doesn’t look like that’s really contributing to the Black-White disparity in preterm birth.
 

Q: You and your colleagues listed exactly one upstream cause of preterm birth: racism. How would you characterize the certainty that racism is a decisive upstream cause of higher rates of preterm birth among Black women?

It makes me think of this saying: A randomized clinical trial wouldn’t be necessary to give certainty about the importance of having a parachute on if you jump from a plane. To me, at this point, it is close to that.

Going through that paper – and we worked on that paper over a three- or four-year period, so there was a lot of time to think about it – I don’t see how the evidence that we have could be explained otherwise.
 

Q: What did you learn about how a mother’s broader lifetime experience of racism might affect birth outcomes versus what she experienced within the medical establishment during pregnancy?

There were many ways that experiencing racial discrimination would affect a woman’s pregnancy, but one major way would be through pathways and biological mechanisms involved in stress and stress physiology. In neuroscience, what’s been clear is that a chronic stressor seems to be more damaging to health than an acute stressor.

So it doesn’t make much sense to be looking only during pregnancy. But that’s where most of that research has been done: stress during pregnancy and racial discrimination, and its role in birth outcomes. Very few studies have looked at experiences of racial discrimination across the life course.

My colleagues and I have published a paper where we asked African American women about their experiences of racism, and we didn’t even define what we meant. Women did not talk a lot about the experiences of racism during pregnancy from their medical providers; they talked about the lifetime experience and particularly experiences going back to childhood. And they talked about having to worry, and constant vigilance, so that even if they’re not experiencing an incident, their antennae have to be out to be prepared in case an incident does occur.

Putting all of it together with what we know about stress physiology, I would put my money on the lifetime experiences being so much more important than experiences during pregnancy. There isn’t enough known about preterm birth, but from what is known, inflammation is involved, immune dysfunction, and that’s what stress leads to. The neuroscientists have shown us that chronic stress produces inflammation and immune system dysfunction.

Q: What policies do you think are most important at this stage for reducing preterm birth for Black women?

I wish I could just say one policy or two policies, but I think it does get back to the need to dismantle racism in our society. In all of its manifestations. That’s unfortunate, not to be able to say, “Oh, here, I have this magic bullet, and if you just go with that, that will solve the problem.”

If you take the conclusions of this study seriously, you say, well, policies to just go after these downstream factors are not going to work. It’s up to the upstream investment in trying to achieve a more equitable and less racist society. Ultimately, I think that’s the take-home, and it’s a tall, tall order.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Dr. Paula Braveman, director of the Center on Social Disparities in Health at the University of California, San Francisco, says her latest research revealed an “astounding” level of evidence that racism is a decisive “upstream” cause of higher rates of preterm birth among Black women.

The tipping point for Dr. Paula Braveman came when a longtime patient of hers at a community clinic in San Francisco’s Mission District slipped past the front desk and knocked on her office door to say goodbye. He wouldn’t be coming to the clinic anymore, he told her, because he could no longer afford it.

It was a decisive moment for Dr. Braveman, who decided she wanted not only to heal ailing patients but also to advocate for policies that would help them be healthier when they arrived at her clinic. In the nearly four decades since, Dr. Braveman has dedicated herself to studying the “social determinants of health” – how the spaces where we live, work, play and learn, and the relationships we have in those places influence how healthy we are.

As director of the Center on Social Disparities in Health at the University of California, San Francisco, Dr. Braveman has studied the link between neighborhood wealth and children’s health, and how access to insurance influences prenatal care. A longtime advocate of translating research into policy, she has collaborated on major health initiatives with the health department in San Francisco, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the World Health Organization.

Dr. Braveman has a particular interest in maternal and infant health. Her latest research reviews what’s known about the persistent gap in preterm birth rates between Black and White women in the United States. Black women are about 1.6 times as likely as White women to give birth more than three weeks before the due date. That statistic bears alarming and costly health consequences, as infants born prematurely are at higher risk for breathing, heart, and brain abnormalities, among other complications.

Dr. Braveman coauthored the review with a group of experts convened by the March of Dimes that included geneticists, clinicians, epidemiologists, biomedical experts, and neurologists. They examined more than two dozen suspected causes of preterm births – including quality of prenatal care, environmental toxics, chronic stress, poverty and obesity – and determined that racism, directly or indirectly, best explained the racial disparities in preterm birth rates.

(Note: In the review, the authors make extensive use of the terms “upstream” and “downstream” to describe what determines people’s health. A downstream risk is the condition or factor most directly responsible for a health outcome, while an upstream factor is what causes or fuels the downstream risk – and often what needs to change to prevent someone from becoming sick. For example, a person living near drinking water polluted with toxic chemicals might get sick from drinking the water. The downstream fix would be telling individuals to use filters. The upstream solution would be to stop the dumping of toxic chemicals.)

KHN spoke with Dr. Braveman about the study and its findings. The excerpts have been edited for length and style.
 

Q: You have been studying the issue of preterm birth and racial disparities for so long. Were there any findings from this review that surprised you?

The process of systematically going through all of the risk factors that are written about in the literature and then seeing how the story of racism was an upstream determinant for virtually all of them. That was kind of astounding.

The other thing that was very impressive: When we looked at the idea that genetic factors could be the cause of the Black-White disparity in preterm birth. The genetics experts in the group, and there were three or four of them, concluded from the evidence that genetic factors might influence the disparity in preterm birth, but at most the effect would be very small, very small indeed. This could not account for the greater rate of preterm birth among Black women compared to White women.
 

Q: You were looking to identify not just what causes preterm birth but also to explain racial differences in rates of preterm birth. Are there examples of factors that can influence preterm birth that don’t explain racial disparities?

It does look like there are genetic components to preterm birth, but they don’t explain the Black-White disparity in preterm birth. Another example is having an early elective C-section. That’s one of the problems contributing to avoidable preterm birth, but it doesn’t look like that’s really contributing to the Black-White disparity in preterm birth.
 

Q: You and your colleagues listed exactly one upstream cause of preterm birth: racism. How would you characterize the certainty that racism is a decisive upstream cause of higher rates of preterm birth among Black women?

It makes me think of this saying: A randomized clinical trial wouldn’t be necessary to give certainty about the importance of having a parachute on if you jump from a plane. To me, at this point, it is close to that.

Going through that paper – and we worked on that paper over a three- or four-year period, so there was a lot of time to think about it – I don’t see how the evidence that we have could be explained otherwise.
 

Q: What did you learn about how a mother’s broader lifetime experience of racism might affect birth outcomes versus what she experienced within the medical establishment during pregnancy?

There were many ways that experiencing racial discrimination would affect a woman’s pregnancy, but one major way would be through pathways and biological mechanisms involved in stress and stress physiology. In neuroscience, what’s been clear is that a chronic stressor seems to be more damaging to health than an acute stressor.

So it doesn’t make much sense to be looking only during pregnancy. But that’s where most of that research has been done: stress during pregnancy and racial discrimination, and its role in birth outcomes. Very few studies have looked at experiences of racial discrimination across the life course.

My colleagues and I have published a paper where we asked African American women about their experiences of racism, and we didn’t even define what we meant. Women did not talk a lot about the experiences of racism during pregnancy from their medical providers; they talked about the lifetime experience and particularly experiences going back to childhood. And they talked about having to worry, and constant vigilance, so that even if they’re not experiencing an incident, their antennae have to be out to be prepared in case an incident does occur.

Putting all of it together with what we know about stress physiology, I would put my money on the lifetime experiences being so much more important than experiences during pregnancy. There isn’t enough known about preterm birth, but from what is known, inflammation is involved, immune dysfunction, and that’s what stress leads to. The neuroscientists have shown us that chronic stress produces inflammation and immune system dysfunction.

Q: What policies do you think are most important at this stage for reducing preterm birth for Black women?

I wish I could just say one policy or two policies, but I think it does get back to the need to dismantle racism in our society. In all of its manifestations. That’s unfortunate, not to be able to say, “Oh, here, I have this magic bullet, and if you just go with that, that will solve the problem.”

If you take the conclusions of this study seriously, you say, well, policies to just go after these downstream factors are not going to work. It’s up to the upstream investment in trying to achieve a more equitable and less racist society. Ultimately, I think that’s the take-home, and it’s a tall, tall order.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Dr. Paula Braveman, director of the Center on Social Disparities in Health at the University of California, San Francisco, says her latest research revealed an “astounding” level of evidence that racism is a decisive “upstream” cause of higher rates of preterm birth among Black women.

The tipping point for Dr. Paula Braveman came when a longtime patient of hers at a community clinic in San Francisco’s Mission District slipped past the front desk and knocked on her office door to say goodbye. He wouldn’t be coming to the clinic anymore, he told her, because he could no longer afford it.

It was a decisive moment for Dr. Braveman, who decided she wanted not only to heal ailing patients but also to advocate for policies that would help them be healthier when they arrived at her clinic. In the nearly four decades since, Dr. Braveman has dedicated herself to studying the “social determinants of health” – how the spaces where we live, work, play and learn, and the relationships we have in those places influence how healthy we are.

As director of the Center on Social Disparities in Health at the University of California, San Francisco, Dr. Braveman has studied the link between neighborhood wealth and children’s health, and how access to insurance influences prenatal care. A longtime advocate of translating research into policy, she has collaborated on major health initiatives with the health department in San Francisco, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the World Health Organization.

Dr. Braveman has a particular interest in maternal and infant health. Her latest research reviews what’s known about the persistent gap in preterm birth rates between Black and White women in the United States. Black women are about 1.6 times as likely as White women to give birth more than three weeks before the due date. That statistic bears alarming and costly health consequences, as infants born prematurely are at higher risk for breathing, heart, and brain abnormalities, among other complications.

Dr. Braveman coauthored the review with a group of experts convened by the March of Dimes that included geneticists, clinicians, epidemiologists, biomedical experts, and neurologists. They examined more than two dozen suspected causes of preterm births – including quality of prenatal care, environmental toxics, chronic stress, poverty and obesity – and determined that racism, directly or indirectly, best explained the racial disparities in preterm birth rates.

(Note: In the review, the authors make extensive use of the terms “upstream” and “downstream” to describe what determines people’s health. A downstream risk is the condition or factor most directly responsible for a health outcome, while an upstream factor is what causes or fuels the downstream risk – and often what needs to change to prevent someone from becoming sick. For example, a person living near drinking water polluted with toxic chemicals might get sick from drinking the water. The downstream fix would be telling individuals to use filters. The upstream solution would be to stop the dumping of toxic chemicals.)

KHN spoke with Dr. Braveman about the study and its findings. The excerpts have been edited for length and style.
 

Q: You have been studying the issue of preterm birth and racial disparities for so long. Were there any findings from this review that surprised you?

The process of systematically going through all of the risk factors that are written about in the literature and then seeing how the story of racism was an upstream determinant for virtually all of them. That was kind of astounding.

The other thing that was very impressive: When we looked at the idea that genetic factors could be the cause of the Black-White disparity in preterm birth. The genetics experts in the group, and there were three or four of them, concluded from the evidence that genetic factors might influence the disparity in preterm birth, but at most the effect would be very small, very small indeed. This could not account for the greater rate of preterm birth among Black women compared to White women.
 

Q: You were looking to identify not just what causes preterm birth but also to explain racial differences in rates of preterm birth. Are there examples of factors that can influence preterm birth that don’t explain racial disparities?

It does look like there are genetic components to preterm birth, but they don’t explain the Black-White disparity in preterm birth. Another example is having an early elective C-section. That’s one of the problems contributing to avoidable preterm birth, but it doesn’t look like that’s really contributing to the Black-White disparity in preterm birth.
 

Q: You and your colleagues listed exactly one upstream cause of preterm birth: racism. How would you characterize the certainty that racism is a decisive upstream cause of higher rates of preterm birth among Black women?

It makes me think of this saying: A randomized clinical trial wouldn’t be necessary to give certainty about the importance of having a parachute on if you jump from a plane. To me, at this point, it is close to that.

Going through that paper – and we worked on that paper over a three- or four-year period, so there was a lot of time to think about it – I don’t see how the evidence that we have could be explained otherwise.
 

Q: What did you learn about how a mother’s broader lifetime experience of racism might affect birth outcomes versus what she experienced within the medical establishment during pregnancy?

There were many ways that experiencing racial discrimination would affect a woman’s pregnancy, but one major way would be through pathways and biological mechanisms involved in stress and stress physiology. In neuroscience, what’s been clear is that a chronic stressor seems to be more damaging to health than an acute stressor.

So it doesn’t make much sense to be looking only during pregnancy. But that’s where most of that research has been done: stress during pregnancy and racial discrimination, and its role in birth outcomes. Very few studies have looked at experiences of racial discrimination across the life course.

My colleagues and I have published a paper where we asked African American women about their experiences of racism, and we didn’t even define what we meant. Women did not talk a lot about the experiences of racism during pregnancy from their medical providers; they talked about the lifetime experience and particularly experiences going back to childhood. And they talked about having to worry, and constant vigilance, so that even if they’re not experiencing an incident, their antennae have to be out to be prepared in case an incident does occur.

Putting all of it together with what we know about stress physiology, I would put my money on the lifetime experiences being so much more important than experiences during pregnancy. There isn’t enough known about preterm birth, but from what is known, inflammation is involved, immune dysfunction, and that’s what stress leads to. The neuroscientists have shown us that chronic stress produces inflammation and immune system dysfunction.

Q: What policies do you think are most important at this stage for reducing preterm birth for Black women?

I wish I could just say one policy or two policies, but I think it does get back to the need to dismantle racism in our society. In all of its manifestations. That’s unfortunate, not to be able to say, “Oh, here, I have this magic bullet, and if you just go with that, that will solve the problem.”

If you take the conclusions of this study seriously, you say, well, policies to just go after these downstream factors are not going to work. It’s up to the upstream investment in trying to achieve a more equitable and less racist society. Ultimately, I think that’s the take-home, and it’s a tall, tall order.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

There is a narrative being pushed now about health care professionals being “frustrated” and “tired” in the midst of this current delta COVID wave. This stems from the idea that this current wave was potentially preventable if everyone received the COVID vaccines when they were made available.

Courtesy of Sound Physicians

I certainly understand this frustration and am tired of dealing with COVID restrictions and wearing masks. Above all I’m tired of talking about it. But frustration and fatigue are nothing new for those in the health care profession. Part of our training is that we should care for everyone, no matter what. Compassion for the ill should not be restricted to patients with a certain financial status, immigration status, race, gender, sexual orientation, or education level. Socially and politically, we are having a reckoning with how we treat people and how we need to do better to create a more just society. A key virtue in all of this is tolerance.

If we are going to have a free society, tolerance is essential. This is because in a free society people are going to, well, be free. In medicine we tolerate people who are morbidly obese, drink alcohol excessively, smoke, refuse to take their medications, won’t exercise, won’t sleep, and do drugs. The overwhelming majority of these people know that what they are doing is bad for their health. Not only do we tolerate them, we are taught to treat them indiscriminately. When someone who is morbidly obese has a heart attack, we treat them, give them medicine, and tell them the importance of losing weight. We do not tell them, “you shouldn’t have eaten so much and gotten so fat,” or “don’t you wish you didn’t get so fat?”

What I am trying to circle back to here is that if you could force people into doing everything they could for their health and eliminate all “preventable” diseases, then the need for health care in this country – including doctors, nurses, hospitals, and pharmaceuticals, just to name a few – would be cut dramatically. While the frustration for the continued COVID surges is understandable, I urge people to remember that in the business of health care we deal with preventable diseases all the time, every day. We are taught to show compassion for everyone, and for good reason. We have no idea what many people’s backstories are, we just know that they are sick and need help.

I urge everyone to put the unvaccinated under the same umbrella you put other people with preventable diseases, which, sadly, is a lot of patients. Continue to educate those about the vaccine as you should about every other aspect of their health. Education is part of our job as health care professionals but judgment is not.

Dr. Matuszak works for Sound Physicians and is a nocturnist at a hospital in the San Francisco Bay Area.

There is a narrative being pushed now about health care professionals being “frustrated” and “tired” in the midst of this current delta COVID wave. This stems from the idea that this current wave was potentially preventable if everyone received the COVID vaccines when they were made available.

Courtesy of Sound Physicians

I certainly understand this frustration and am tired of dealing with COVID restrictions and wearing masks. Above all I’m tired of talking about it. But frustration and fatigue are nothing new for those in the health care profession. Part of our training is that we should care for everyone, no matter what. Compassion for the ill should not be restricted to patients with a certain financial status, immigration status, race, gender, sexual orientation, or education level. Socially and politically, we are having a reckoning with how we treat people and how we need to do better to create a more just society. A key virtue in all of this is tolerance.

If we are going to have a free society, tolerance is essential. This is because in a free society people are going to, well, be free. In medicine we tolerate people who are morbidly obese, drink alcohol excessively, smoke, refuse to take their medications, won’t exercise, won’t sleep, and do drugs. The overwhelming majority of these people know that what they are doing is bad for their health. Not only do we tolerate them, we are taught to treat them indiscriminately. When someone who is morbidly obese has a heart attack, we treat them, give them medicine, and tell them the importance of losing weight. We do not tell them, “you shouldn’t have eaten so much and gotten so fat,” or “don’t you wish you didn’t get so fat?”

What I am trying to circle back to here is that if you could force people into doing everything they could for their health and eliminate all “preventable” diseases, then the need for health care in this country – including doctors, nurses, hospitals, and pharmaceuticals, just to name a few – would be cut dramatically. While the frustration for the continued COVID surges is understandable, I urge people to remember that in the business of health care we deal with preventable diseases all the time, every day. We are taught to show compassion for everyone, and for good reason. We have no idea what many people’s backstories are, we just know that they are sick and need help.

I urge everyone to put the unvaccinated under the same umbrella you put other people with preventable diseases, which, sadly, is a lot of patients. Continue to educate those about the vaccine as you should about every other aspect of their health. Education is part of our job as health care professionals but judgment is not.

Dr. Matuszak works for Sound Physicians and is a nocturnist at a hospital in the San Francisco Bay Area.

There is a narrative being pushed now about health care professionals being “frustrated” and “tired” in the midst of this current delta COVID wave. This stems from the idea that this current wave was potentially preventable if everyone received the COVID vaccines when they were made available.

Courtesy of Sound Physicians

I certainly understand this frustration and am tired of dealing with COVID restrictions and wearing masks. Above all I’m tired of talking about it. But frustration and fatigue are nothing new for those in the health care profession. Part of our training is that we should care for everyone, no matter what. Compassion for the ill should not be restricted to patients with a certain financial status, immigration status, race, gender, sexual orientation, or education level. Socially and politically, we are having a reckoning with how we treat people and how we need to do better to create a more just society. A key virtue in all of this is tolerance.

If we are going to have a free society, tolerance is essential. This is because in a free society people are going to, well, be free. In medicine we tolerate people who are morbidly obese, drink alcohol excessively, smoke, refuse to take their medications, won’t exercise, won’t sleep, and do drugs. The overwhelming majority of these people know that what they are doing is bad for their health. Not only do we tolerate them, we are taught to treat them indiscriminately. When someone who is morbidly obese has a heart attack, we treat them, give them medicine, and tell them the importance of losing weight. We do not tell them, “you shouldn’t have eaten so much and gotten so fat,” or “don’t you wish you didn’t get so fat?”

What I am trying to circle back to here is that if you could force people into doing everything they could for their health and eliminate all “preventable” diseases, then the need for health care in this country – including doctors, nurses, hospitals, and pharmaceuticals, just to name a few – would be cut dramatically. While the frustration for the continued COVID surges is understandable, I urge people to remember that in the business of health care we deal with preventable diseases all the time, every day. We are taught to show compassion for everyone, and for good reason. We have no idea what many people’s backstories are, we just know that they are sick and need help.

I urge everyone to put the unvaccinated under the same umbrella you put other people with preventable diseases, which, sadly, is a lot of patients. Continue to educate those about the vaccine as you should about every other aspect of their health. Education is part of our job as health care professionals but judgment is not.

Dr. Matuszak works for Sound Physicians and is a nocturnist at a hospital in the San Francisco Bay Area.