Racial Discrimination in Health Care: Annotated Bibliography
This annotated bibliography surveys eleven peer-reviewed sources examining racial and ethnic discrimination within health care systems. The sources address a range of interconnected topics, including disparities in kidney transplantation access for minority pediatric patients, the ethical dimensions of racism in clinical settings, the methodological challenges of qualitative health research, the influence of socioeconomic status on care inequities, and historical discrimination by the medical establishment. Together, the annotations identify recurring gaps in qualitative literature, highlight the complexity of measuring discrimination, and underscore the need for systemic interventions to achieve equitable health care delivery across racial and ethnic groups.
- Overview of Discrimination in Health Care Settings: Quantitative and self-reported discrimination across ethnic groups
- Ethnicity Data Collection and Healthcare Inequity: Reliability of ethnicity data for addressing health inequity
- Racial Disparities in Pediatric Kidney Transplantation: Transplant access gaps among minority pediatric patients
- Historical Discrimination and Reparative Medical Ethics: Stem cell reparations for past medical wrongs to minorities
- Racism, Ethics, and Qualitative Research Challenges: Ethical framing of racism and qualitative methodology gaps
- Socioeconomic Factors and Systemic Health Care Inequity: Socioeconomic and structural drivers of health care disparity
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Each annotation follows a consistent structure: study context, method, findings, and evaluative commentary — making cross-source comparison easy for readers.
- The student critically assesses each source rather than simply summarizing it, identifying gaps (especially the absence of qualitative analysis) and connecting sources to one another (e.g., noting how Browne et al. qualifies MacIntosh et al.).
- The bibliography maintains a clear thematic thread — racial and ethnic discrimination in health care — while demonstrating awareness of related subtopics like transplant access, medical ethics, and research methodology.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates effective source synthesis in an annotated bibliography format. Rather than treating each source in isolation, the student explicitly links findings across entries — for example, noting that Richardson et al. "supports indirectly the findings of Brown et al." and that MacIntosh et al. is limited by the data-reliability concern raised by Browne et al. This cross-referencing elevates the work beyond simple description toward genuine literature review thinking.
Structure breakdown
The bibliography is organized by individual source, moving roughly from quantitative studies of discrimination frequency through data-collection methodology, transplantation disparities, historical ethics, and qualitative research challenges, before closing with a narrative case study. Each entry is self-contained but contributes to a cumulative argument that both quantitative and qualitative gaps remain in the literature on health care discrimination.
Overview of Discrimination in Health Care Settings
Benjamins, M., & Whitman, S. (2014). Relationships between discrimination in health care and health care outcomes among four race/ethnic groups. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 37, 402–413.
The researchers are based at the Sinai Urban Health Institute in Chicago, IL. Their study focuses on the ways in which discrimination impacts health care by comparing discrimination levels — both ethnic and racial — across four different ethnic groups. The study then analyzes the relationship between acts of discrimination and their consequences for health care services. An assessment is also made of ways in which mediators and moderators might be utilized to mitigate the risk of discrimination and its impact on care.
The method used by the researchers included the adoption of multivariate logistic regression models. The sample consisted of 1,700 individuals of white, Black, Mexican, and Puerto Rican descent. Of this sample, nearly a quarter reported having experienced health care discrimination. There was a consistent pattern evidencing that discrimination correlated with race. The types of discrimination cited by the sample included not receiving the care they required and not receiving adequate quality of care. The researchers suggest that further studies be conducted in order to address qualitative questions, such as "What happened or who was the perpetrator?" in cases of discrimination, so that a better assessment of the nature of the discrimination and its effects in health care can be developed (p. 411). This information can then be utilized to develop methods of intervention that might help curb this phenomenon.
This study is helpful in providing a quantitative assessment of discrimination in the health care industry, with some 25% of the sample reporting that they had experienced discrimination. The study is limited in terms of qualitative analysis, which the researchers themselves assert should be conducted so as to deepen understanding of the problem. Thus, there is a gap in qualitative literature regarding discriminatory practices among health care providers — a gap that might be filled by a study utilizing a phenomenological approach.
MacIntosh, T., Desai, M., Lewis, T., Jones, B., & Nunez-Smith, M. (2013). Socially-assigned race, healthcare discrimination and preventive healthcare services. PLoS One, 8(5): e64522.
The researchers are based in the Department of Emergency Medicine, the Department of Chronic Disease Epidemiology, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Clinical Scholars Program, the Department of Epidemiology, and the Global Health Leadership Institute, all at major research universities. The focus of the study is on the relationship between health care services and discrimination on the part of providers towards various racial groups. The manner in which these groups self-identify as belonging to a particular race is also examined in order to clarify the nature of race as a social construct. The method utilized was a cross-sectional analysis of responses from a sample drawn from seven different states plus Washington, D.C., categorized into three groups using a twofold classification of self-identified race and socially-assigned race — so as to determine whether there was any discrepancy between how individuals were perceived by society and how they perceived themselves. In total, more than 30,000 respondents participated in the survey.
The findings showed that individuals who self-identified as minorities perceived racial discrimination from health care providers more than any other group of respondents (compared to those who identified as white or as minority/white). Another finding was that minorities viewed as white by social standards received preventive vaccines more often than minorities viewed as minorities, and that individuals who report being perceived as white by society also faced less discrimination from health care providers.
This study supports the other sources in this literature review by pointing out how racial constructs impact the health care industry. One weakness, however, is that — as Browne et al. (2014) noted — racialized groups typically represent unreliable data. Thus this study is helpful for raising the issue of discrimination in health care, but it mainly serves to illustrate that racialized groups (minorities) feel discriminated against more than groups not viewed by society as minorities. The broader ramifications of this study remain unclear.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.