Abstract While medical technology is typically considered neutral, many devices rely upon racially biased algorithms that prioritize care for White patients over Black patients, who may require more urgent medical attention. In their accompanying article, Sudat et al. (Am J Epidemiol. 2023;XXX(XX):XXX–XXX) document striking inaccuracies in pulse oximeter readings among Black patients, with significant clinical implications. Their findings suggest that this resulted in racial differences in delivery of evidence-based care during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, affecting admissions and treatment protocols. Despite the medical community’s growing awareness of the pulse oximeter’s significant design flaw, the device is still in use. In this article, I contextualize Sudat et al.’s study results within the larger history of racial bias in medical devices by highlighting the consequences of the continued underrepresentation of diverse populations in clinical trials. I probe the implications of racially biased assessments within clinical practice and research and illustrate the disproportionate impact on patients of color by examining 2 medical tools, the pulse oximeter and pulmonary function tests. Both cases result in the undertreatment and underdiagnosis of Black patients. I also demonstrate how the social underpinnings of racial bias in medical technology contribute to poor health outcomes and reproduce health disparities, and propose several recommendations for the field to rectify the harms of racial bias in medical technology.
© 2001-2024 Fundación Dialnet · Todos los derechos reservados