Equity and Justice in Family Medicine Clinical Care and Teaching Must Incorporate a Reproductive Justice Framework.

Since European settlement, the United States has controlled the reproduction of communities of color through tactics ranging from forced pregnancies, sterilizations, and abortions to immigration policies and policies that separate children from their families. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer (or questioning), asexual, intersex, and gender diverse people (LGBTQIA+) have been persecuted for sexual behavior and gender expression, and also restricted from having children. In response, women of color and LGBTQIA+ communities have organized for Reproductive Justice (RJ) and liberation. The Reproductive Justice framework, conceived in 1994 by the Women of African Descent for Reproductive Justice, addresses the reproductive health needs of Black women and communities from a broad human rights perspective. Since then, the framework has expanded with an intersectional approach to include all communities of color and LGBTQIA+ communities. Notwithstanding, reproductive injustice negatively impacts the health of already marginalized and oppressed communities, which is reflected in higher rates of maternal mortality, infant mortality, infertility, preterm births, and poorer health outcomes associated with race-based stress. While the impact of racial injustice on disparate health outcomes is increasingly addressed in family medicine, Reproductive Justice has not been universally incorporated into care provision or education. Including the RJ framework in family medicine education is critical to understanding how structural, economic, and political factors influence health outcomes to improve health care delivery from a justice and human rights perspective. This commentary describes how an RJ framework can enhance medical education and care provision, and subsequently identifies strategies for incorporating Reproductive Justice teaching into family medicine education.

We Are Not All the Same: Implications of Heterogeneity Among Latiné/e/x/o/a, Hispanic, and Spanish Origin People.

There is great variation in the experiences of Latiné/e/x/o/a, Hispanic, and/or Spanish origin (LHS) individuals in the United States, including differences in race, ancestry, colonization histories, and immigration experiences. This essay calls readers to consider the implications of the heterogeneity of lived experiences among LHS populations, including variations in country of origin, immigration histories, time in the United States, languages spoken, and colonization histories on patient care and academia. There is power in unity when advocating for community, social, and political change, especially as it pertains to equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI; sometimes referred to as DEI) efforts in academic institutions. Yet, there is also a critical need to disaggregate the LHS diaspora and its conceptualization based on differing experiences so that we may improve our understanding of the sociopolitical attributes that impact health. We propose strategies to improve recognition of these differences and their potential health outcomes toward a goal of health equity.

Diversity and Facing Discrimination in Family Medicine Residencies: A CERA Survey of Program Directors.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Increasing the number of underrepresented minorities in medicine (URM) has the potential to improve access and quality of care and reduce health inequities for diverse populations. Having a diverse workforce in residency programs necessitates structures in place for support, training, and addressing racism and discrimination. This study examines reports of discrimination and training initiatives to increase diversity and address discrimination and unconscious bias in family medicine residency programs nationally. METHODS: This survey was part of the Council of Academic Family Medicine Educational Research Alliance (CERA) 2018 national survey of family medicine residency program directors. Questions addressed the presence of reported discrimination, residency program training about discrimination and bias, and admissions practices concerning physician workforce diversity. We performed univariate and bivariate analyses on CERA survey response data. RESULTS: We received 272 responses to the diversity survey items within the CERA program director survey from 522 possible residency director respondents, yielding a response rate of 52.1%. The majority of residency programs (78%) offer training for faculty and/or residents in unconscious/implicit bias and systemic/institutional racism. A minority of program directors report discrimination in the residency environment, most often reported by patients (13.2%) and staff (7.2%) and least often by faculty (3.3%), with most common reasons for discrimination noted as language or race/skin color. CONCLUSIONS: Most family medicine residency program directors report initiatives to address diversity in the workforce. Research is needed to develop best practices to ensure continued improvement in workforce diversity and racial climate that will enhance the quality of care and access for underserved populations.

Seeing in 3-D: examining the reach of diabetes self-management support strategies in a public health care system.

The authors examined whether tailored self-management support (SMS) strategies reach patients in a safety net system and explored variation by language, literacy, and insurance. English-, Spanish-, and Cantonese-speaking diabetes patients were randomized to weekly automated telephone disease management (ATDM) or monthly group medical visits. The SMS programs employ distinct communication methods but share common objectives, including behavioral "action plans." Reach was measured using three complementary dimensions: (a) participation among clinics, clinicians, and patients; (b) patient representativeness; and (c) patient engagement with SMS. Participation rates were high across all levels and preferentially attracted Spanish-language speakers, uninsured, and Medicaid recipients. Although both programs engaged a significant proportion in action planning, ATDM yielded higher engagement, especially among those with limited English proficiency and limited literacy. These results provide important insights for health communication and translational research with respect to realizing the public health benefits of SMS and can inform system-level planning to reduce health disparities.