Doctors’ Perceptions of Multiracial Adolescents
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Overall, I found this to be a solid and valuable paper. My main concerns are around 1) how race and ethnicity have been conflated in this study 2) the lack of definition of key structural terms, specifically white supremacy, race and ethnicity and 3) lack of explanation of how race matters for health. I'll elaborate on each.
The author seems to use race and ethnicity interchangeable, but they are not synonymous. For example an Afro-Colombian person may be mono racial but just a Black person from Colombia. Based on this study they might be considered multi-racial or multi-ethnic because they are Black and latino. There are a lot of different races within the latino category, the same is true for arab and middle eastern - who were racially categorized as white yet ethnically "other". I would like to see the authors discuss that more.
Along the same lines, the author talks about white supremacy, but I need a clearer explicit definition of the author so that I can see how they are connecting it to their study.
And finally I'd like the author to speak more to How race matters for health. Speaking to the "social determinants of health" might be helpful here. We know that race is a proxy for social position and environmental conditions, it is helpful to have that laid out more clearly.
Otherwise the study and questions are fine, and everything seems to flow fairly logically.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Some of the tables need more information such as sample size. Each table should be able to stand alone so the reader knows everything being presented in the table. For example, in Table 7 it is not clear why specfic percentages are in color over others and I am confused what these mean.
P-values should be reported in tables when the value is available. The authors mean reference category instead of omitted category in regards to white in tables. The authors should consider reporting Odds Ratios and CIs instead of Bs and SEs as they provide better facilitation for interpretation. For example he authors just overlook what the significance in Table 4 actually means for Asians. As a reader I am not sure seeing Table 5 how they got 7,089 for sample size without going back to read the writeup.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
