Table 3.

Study Characteristics

First Author, Year	Study Design	Location	Sample	Type(s) of Discrimination	Main Strengths	Main Limitations
Allen, 2019	Cross-sectional	California, US	N=208, 100% African American, 100% Female	Perceived experiences of racial discrimination	Tested several cut-off points for AL Handled missing data via multiple imputation Tested effect modification by educational attainment	Cross-sectional design Small sample size Non-probability sampling Generalizability limited to African American females Single location
Cuevas, 2019	Cross-sectional	Massachusetts, US	N=882; 100% Puerto Rican; 73% Female	Perceived lifetime and everyday discrimination	Large sample size Measured two types of discrimination Tested gender as an effect modifier Handled missing data via multiple imputation	Cross-sectional design Generalizability limited to Puerto Ricans Single location
Currie, 2019a	Cross-sectional	Western Canada	N=105; 100% Indigenous; 73% Female	Perceived childhood racial discrimination	Collected both quantitative and qualitative data on discrimination Tested for interactions between discrimination and confounders	Cross-sectional design Small sample size Single location
Currie 2019b	Cross-sectional	Western Canada	N=104; 100% Indigenous; 73% Female	Perceived experiences of (past year) racial discrimination	Collected descriptive data on discrimination Tested for interactions between discrimination and confounders	Cross-sectional design Small sample size Complete-case analysis (43% missingness) Single location
Daly, 2019	Longitudinal	England	N=3609; 96.2% White; 52.7% female	Perceived everyday weight-based discrimination	Longitudinal analysis Tested gender as an effect modifier	Predominantly White Sample Weight discrimination measured at only one time point
Ong, 2017	Cross-sectional	Wisconsin, United States	N=233; 100% African American; 67% Female	Perceived everyday and lifetime unfair treatment	Missing data was handled via multiple imputation Interactions with age, gender, and educational attainment were tested in supplemental analyses Measured two types of discrimination	Cross-sectional data Small sample size Generalizability limited to African Americans
Rosemberg, 2019	Cross-sectional	Un-identified location	N=49; 29% Black; 56% Hispanic, Latino, Mexican American, Mexican; 4% American Indian/ Alaska Native/ Asian; 6% White; 100% female	Perceived everyday discrimination	Bilingual study staff Inclusion of non-English speakers Tested two summary scores of AL	Cross-sectional design Small sample size Generalizability limited to women
Thomas, 2019	Cross-sectional	California, US	N=208, 100% African American, 100% Female	Perceived everyday experiences of racial discrimination and institutional discrimination	Measured two types of discrimination Used multiple imputation to account for missingness	Cross-sectional design Small sample size Non-probability sampling Generalizability limited to African American females Single location
Upchurch, 2015	Longitudinal	Multiple sites, US	N=2063; 29% African American, 20% Japanese; >50% White; 100% Female	Perceived everyday discrimination	Longitudinal analysis Large, multi -racial and ethnic study sample	Community based sampling limits national representativeness Only considered baseline income Unable to assess moderating effects of psychosocial factors
Vadiveloo, 2017	Longitudinal	Multiple sites, US	N=986; 93% White; 57% female	Perceived everyday weight-based discrimination	Large national sample Longitudinal analysis Accounted for familial relationships (e.g., effect of shared environment, genetics)	Majority White sample
Zilioli, 2017	Cross-sectional	Multiple sites, US	N=909; 100% White; 54% Female	Perceived everyday discrimination	Large sample Community-based sample	Cross-sectional design Restricted analysis to only Whites Restricted analysis to individuals with complete data on all study variables

Notes: US: United States; AL: Allostatic Load