Aortic regurgitation in the tuskegee study of untreated syphilis

Caldwell, Joe; Price, Eleanor V.; Schroeter, Arnold L.; Fletcher, Gerald F.

doi:10.1016/0021-9681(73)90089-1

Cited by 23 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These processes are complex and systemic, underpinned by unequal power relations and beliefs, and operating at individual, community, and organisational levels, resulting in stigmatisation, discrimination, and marginalisation of ethnic minorities [74] . Within a healthcare context, this contributes to inequities in the delivery of care, barriers to accessing care, loss of trust, and psychosocial stressors [ 75 , 76 ]. There is evidence to suggest that ethnic minorities and migrant groups have been less likely to implement public health measures, be tested, or seek care when experiencing symptoms due to such barriers and inequities in the availability and accessibility of care [77] , underscoring critical healthcare disparities [ 3 , 5 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ethnicity and clinical outcomes in COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ethnicity and clinical outcomes in COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…These men were never told of their diagnosis and were never offered treatment for their condition, even after the discovery of penicillin. The ethics of this research were never challenged by the government agency funding the research, nor by the readers of the reputable medical journals, such as the Archives of Internal Medicine and the Journal of Chronic Diseases, that routinely reported the study's findings (Caldwell et al, 1973;Rockwell et al, 1961). As Fairchild and Bayer (1999) have observed, ''Tuskegee can draw our attention to the inevitable moral challenges that will emerge when research involves those who are socially vulnerable.'…”

Section: Cultural Distrust Model: Discrimination and Legal Risksmentioning

confidence: 92%

Cross-Cultural Sources of Measurement Error in Substance Use Surveys

Johnson

Bowman

2003

Substance Use & Misuse

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present an overview of the cross-cultural quality of survey reports of substance use behaviors in the United States. Empirical data from 36 published studies (1977-2003) are examined to evaluate the reliability and validity of substance use reports across cultural groups. In these studies, race/ethnicity are used as proxy indicators of respondent culture. In general, the available research suggests that, with a few exceptions, the quality of survey data on racial and ethnic disparities in substance use is often limited by differential measurement error. A conceptual paradigm is presented to consider a wide range of potential causes for these differences in measurement error that includes two dimensions: emphasis on negative vs. positive behavior patterns, and emphasis on internal vs. external causal factors. These two dimensions yield four potential models that are useful in understanding variations in substance use measurement error: the cultural deficit model, the cultural conflict model, the mainstream conformity model, and the cultural distrust model. Future research should focus on the ability of each of these alternative models to account for cultural variability in the quality of substance use reporting.

show abstract

“…When the sponsorship from the Rosenwald Foundation ceased, the treatment part of the study was dropped, and its observational arm continued until the early 1970s when a PHS officer leaked the story to a Washington, DC, newspaper and the study was abruptly terminated. It is worth mentioning that, in a sense, the study had already been made public by virtue of its internal reports (15, 16) as well as its numerous publications in widely read medical journals, where the methodology (observation but not treatment) had been clearly described from the outset (17–24).…”

Section: Specific Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of course, not everything that emanated from the Tuskegee study was negative. In fact, in cold scientific terms the study can be regarded as successful; followup of study participants while alive, and permission to obtain autopsies after their demise, was close to 100% and several publications in respected journals attest to the quality of the data collected, analyzed, and interpreted (14–24). The Tuskegee study also left us a significant legacy, the establishment of institutional review boards and informed consents as essential elements of clinical research.…”

Section: Specific Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%