Definitions, terminology, and related concepts of "racial health equity": a scoping review protocol.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
In the USA, access to quality healthcare varies greatly across racial and ethnic groups, resulting in significant health disparities. A new term, "racial health equity" (RHE), is increasingly reported in the medical literature, but there is currently no consensus definition of the term. Additionally, related terms such as "health disparities," "health inequities," and "equality" have been inconsistently used when defining RHE.Methods
The primary purpose of this scoping review is to investigate the current use and underlying concepts used to define racial health equity. The study will address two key questions: (1) "What terminology and definitions have been used to characterize RHE?" and (2) "What knowledge gaps and challenges are present in the current state of RHE research and theory?" The review will collect and analyze data from three sources: (1) websites from key national and international health organizations, (2) theoretical and narrative published articles, and (3) evidence synthesis studies addressing interventions targeting racial health equity and minority stakeholder engagement.Discussion
Defining "racial health equity" and related terminology is the first step to advancing racial health equity within the USA. This review aims to offer an improved understanding of RHE constructs and definitions, bringing greater unity to national racial health equity research efforts across disciplines.Systematic review registration
This protocol is registered with the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/7pvzq .
SUBMITTER: Heyn PC
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10542690 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Definitions, terminology, and related concepts of "racial health equity": a scoping review protocol.
Heyn Patricia C PC Terhune Elizabeth A EA Dagne Mahederemariam Bayleyegn MB Piper Christi C Welch Vivian A VA Francis Damian D Pizarro Ana B AB Rizvi Anita A Sathe Nila N Dewidar Omar O Ovelman Colleen C Duque Tiffany T Baker Tamara A TA Turner Robert W RW Viswanathan Meera M Riddle Dru D
Systematic reviews 20230930 1
<h4>Background</h4>In the USA, access to quality healthcare varies greatly across racial and ethnic groups, resulting in significant health disparities. A new term, "racial health equity" (RHE), is increasingly reported in the medical literature, but there is currently no consensus definition of the term. Additionally, related terms such as "health disparities," "health inequities," and "equality" have been inconsistently used when defining RHE.<h4>Methods</h4>The primary purpose of this scoping ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionPrecision public health is an emerging and evolving field. Academic communities are divided regarding terminology and definitions, and what the scope, parameters and goals of precision public health should include. This protocol summarises the procedure for a scoping review which aims to identify and describe definitions, terminology, uses of the term and concepts in current literature.Methods and analysisA scoping review will be undertaken to gather existing literature on precision public health. We will search CINAHL, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar, and include all documents published in English that mention precision public health. A critical discourse analysis of the resulting papers will generate an account of precision public health terminology, definitions and uses of the term and the use and meaning of language. The analysis will occur in stages: first, descriptive information will be extracted and descriptive statistics will be calculated in order to characterise the literature. Second, occurrences of the phrase 'precision public health' and alternative terms in documents will be enumerated and mapped, and definitions collected. The third stage of discourse analysis will involve analysis and interpretation of the meaning of precision public health, including the composition, organisation and function of discourses. Finally, discourse analysis of alternative phrases to precision public health will be undertaken. This will include analysis and interpretation of what alternative phrases to precision public health are used to mean, how the phrases relate to each other and how they are compared or contrasted to precision public health. Results will be grouped under headings according to how they answer the research questions.Ethics and disseminationNo ethical approval will be required for the scoping review. Results of the scoping review will be used as part of a doctoral thesis, and may be published in journals, conference proceedings or elsewhere.
| S-EPMC8867336 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceSocial needs interventions aim to improve health outcomes and mitigate inequities by addressing health-related social needs, such as lack of transportation or food insecurity. However, it is not clear whether these studies are reducing racial or ethnic inequities.ObjectiveTo understand how studies of interventions addressing social needs among multiracial or multiethnic populations conceptualize and analyze differential intervention outcomes by race or ethnicity.Evidence reviewSources included a scoping review of systematic searches of PubMed and the Cochrane Library from January 1, 1995, through November 29, 2021, expert suggestions, and hand searches of key citations. Eligible studies evaluated interventions addressing social needs; reported behavioral, health, or utilization outcomes or harms; and were conducted in multiracial or multiethnic populations. Two reviewers independently assessed titles, abstracts, and full text for inclusion. The team developed a framework to assess whether the study was "conceptually thoughtful" for understanding root causes of racial health inequities (ie, noted that race or ethnicity are markers of exposure to racism) and whether analyses were "analytically informative" for advancing racial health equity research (ie, examined differential intervention impacts by race or ethnicity).FindingsOf 152 studies conducted in multiracial or multiethnic populations, 44 studies included race or ethnicity in their analyses; of these, only 4 (9%) were conceptually thoughtful. Twenty-one studies (14%) were analytically informative. Seven of 21 analytically informative studies reported differences in outcomes by race or ethnicity, whereas 14 found no differences. Among the 7 that found differential outcomes, 4 found the interventions were associated with improved outcomes for minoritized racial or ethnic populations or reduced inequities between minoritized and White populations. No studies were powered to detect differences.Conclusions and relevanceIn this review of a scoping review, studies of social needs interventions in multiracial or multiethnic populations were rarely conceptually thoughtful for understanding root causes of racial health inequities and infrequently conducted informative analyses on intervention effectiveness by race or ethnicity. Future work should use a theoretically sound conceptualization of how race (as a proxy for racism) affects social drivers of health and use this understanding to ensure social needs interventions benefit minoritized racial and ethnic groups facing social and structural barriers to health.
| S-EPMC9857687 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Progress toward racial health equity cannot be made if we cannot measure its fundamental driver: structural racism. As in other epidemiologic studies, the first step is to measure the exposure. But how to measure structural racism is an ongoing debate. To characterize the approaches epidemiologists and other health researchers use to quantitatively measure structural racism, highlight methodological innovations, and identify gaps in the literature, we conducted a scoping review of the peer-reviewed and gray literature published during 2019-2021 to accompany the 2018 published work of Groos et al., in which they surveyed the scope of structural racism measurement up to 2017. We identified several themes from the recent literature: the current predominant focus on measuring anti-Black racism; using residential segregation as well as other segregation-driven measures as proxies of structural racism; measuring structural racism as spatial exposures; increasing calls by epidemiologists and other health researchers to measure structural racism as a multidimensional, multilevel determinant of health and related innovations; the development of policy databases; the utility of simulated counterfactual approaches in the understanding of how structural racism drives racial health inequities; and the lack of measures of antiracism and limited work on later life effects. Our findings sketch out several steps to improve the science related to structural racism measurements, which is key to advancing antiracism policies.
| S-EPMC11405678 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe objective of this scoping review is to map the available evidence on strategies that nurses can use to facilitate genomics-informed healthcare to address health disparities.IntroductionAdvancements in genomics over the last two decades have led to an increase in the delivery of genomics-informed health care. Although the integration of genomics into health care services continues to enhance patient outcomes, access to genomic technologies is not equitable, exacerbating existing health disparities amongst certain populations. As the largest portion of the health workforce, nurses play a critical role in the delivery of equitable genomics-informed care. However, little is known about how nurses can help address health disparities within the context of genomics-informed health care. A review of the literature will provide the necessary foundation to identify promising practices, policy, and knowledge gaps for further areas of inquiry.Inclusion criteriaWe will include papers that explore strategies that nurses can undertake to facilitate genomics-informed care to address health disparities.MethodsThis review will be conducted using JBI methodology for scoping reviews. We will search electronic databases including MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE, Cochrane Library, PsychInfo, and CINAHL for quantitative and qualitative studies, systematic reviews and grey literature. Theses, books, and unavailable full-text papers will be excluded. The search will be limited to papers from 2013 and beyond. Two reviewers will screen titles and abstracts followed by full-text and disagreements will be resolved by a third reviewer. We will use a data extraction tool using Microsoft Excel and analyse data using descriptive statistics and conventional content analysis. Findings will be presented in the form of evidence tables and a narrative summary. We will report findings using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR).DiscussionGenomics will continue to transform all aspects of health care across the wellness continuum from prevention, assessment, diagnosis, management, treatment, and palliative care. The identification of nursing strategies to address health disparities will build the foundation for policy and practice to ensure that the integration of genomic technologies benefits everyone.
| S-EPMC10723661 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionHealthcare systems around the world exhibit inherent systemic inequities that disproportionately impact marginalised populations. Digital health technologies (DHTs) hold promising potential to address these inequities and to play a pivotal role in advancing health equity. However, there is a notable gap regarding a comprehensive and structured overview of existing frameworks and guidelines on advancing health equity and a clear understanding of the potential of DHTs in their implementation. To this end, our primary objectives are first to identify prevalent frameworks and guidelines that promote health equity and second to pinpoint the contemporary role of DHTs as an avenue for implementing these frameworks and guidelines. This synthesis will guide future DHTs, ensuring equitable accessibility and effectiveness and ultimately contributing to enhancing health equity among marginalised populations.Methods and analysisThis work adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Scoping Reviews. To identify pertinent evidence, we will employ seven electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science and WISO) encompassing the fields of medicine, healthcare and social sciences. Moreover, selected grey literature will be considered. We will include primary and secondary studies published in English between 2010 and 2023 that focus on (technology and non-technology-based) frameworks and guidelines for health equity improvement. Each article will undergo an independent assessment for eligibility, followed by the extraction of pertinent data from eligible sources. Subsequently, the extracted data will be subjected to qualitative and quantitative analyses, and findings will be presented using narrative and descriptive formats.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is deemed unnecessary for this scoping review, as it involves synthesising existing knowledge. The findings from this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications.Protocol registrationhttps://osf.io/94pht.
| S-EPMC11481109 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In light of the current public health challenges, calls for more inter- and transdisciplinarity in the public health workforce are increasing, particularly to respond to complex and intersecting health challenges, such as those presented by the climate crisis, emerging infectious diseases, or military conflict. Although widely used, it is unclear how the concepts of multi-, inter-, and transdisciplinarity are applied with respect to the public health workforce. We conducted a scoping review and qualitative content analysis to provide an overview of how the concepts of multi-, inter-, and transdisciplinarity are defined and applied in the academic literature about the public health workforce. Of the 1957 records identified, 324 articles were included in the review. Of those, 193, 176, and 53 mentioned the concepts of multi-, inter-, and transdisciplinarity, respectively. Overall, 44 articles provided a definition. Whilst definitions of multidisciplinarity were scarce, definitions of inter- and transdisciplinarity were more common and richer, highlighting the aim of the collaboration and the blurring and dissolution of disciplinary boundaries. A better understanding of the application of multi-, inter-, and transdisciplinarity is an important step to implementing these concepts in practice, including in institutional structures, academic curricula, and approaches in tackling public health challenges.
| S-EPMC9517885 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThough artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to augment the patient-physician relationship in primary care, bias in intelligent health care systems has the potential to differentially impact vulnerable patient populations.ObjectiveThe purpose of this scoping review is to summarize the extent to which AI systems in primary care examine the inherent bias toward or against vulnerable populations and appraise how these systems have mitigated the impact of such biases during their development.MethodsWe will conduct a search update from an existing scoping review to identify studies on AI and primary care in the following databases: Medline-OVID, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital Library, MathSciNet, AAAI, and arXiv. Two screeners will independently review all abstracts, titles, and full-text articles. The team will extract data using a structured data extraction form and synthesize the results in accordance with PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines.ResultsThis review will provide an assessment of the current state of health care equity within AI for primary care. Specifically, we will identify the degree to which vulnerable patients have been included, assess how bias is interpreted and documented, and understand the extent to which harmful biases are addressed. As of October 2020, the scoping review is in the title- and abstract-screening stage. The results are expected to be submitted for publication in fall 2021.ConclusionsAI applications in primary care are becoming an increasingly common tool in health care delivery and in preventative care efforts for underserved populations. This scoping review would potentially show the extent to which studies on AI in primary care employ a health equity lens and take steps to mitigate bias.International registered report identifier (irrid)PRR1-10.2196/27799.
| S-EPMC8486995 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEquity in health has become an important policy agenda around the world, prompting health economists to advance methods to enable the inclusion of equity in economic evaluations. Among the methods that have been proposed to explicitly include equity are the weighting analysis, equity impact analysis, and equity trade-off analysis. This is a new development and a comprehensive overview of trends and concepts of health equity in economic evaluations is lacking. Thus, our objective is to map the current state of the literature with respect to how health equity is considered in economic evaluations of health interventions reported in the academic and gray literature.MethodsWe will conduct a scoping review to identify and map evidence on how health equity is considered in economic evaluations of health interventions. We will search relevant electronic, gray literature and key journals. We developed a search strategy using text words and Medical Subject Headings terms related to health equity and economic evaluations of health interventions. Articles retrieved will be uploaded to reference manager software for screening and data extraction. Two reviewers will independently screen the articles based on their titles and abstracts for inclusion, and then will independently screen a full text to ascertain final inclusion. A simple numerical count will be used to quantify the data and a content analysis will be conducted to present the narrative; that is, a thematic summary of the data collected.DiscussionThe results of this scoping review will provide a comprehensive overview of the current evidence on how health equity is considered in economic evaluations of health interventions and its research gaps. It will also provide key information to decision-makers and policy-makers to understand ways to include health equity into the prioritization of health interventions when aiming for a more equitable distribution of health resources.Systematic review registrationThis protocol was registered with Open Science Framework (OSF) Registry on August 14, 2019 (https://osf.io/9my2z/registrations).
| S-EPMC6950907 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWith the progressive digitization of people's lives and in the specific healthcare context, the issue of equity in the healthcare domain has extended to digital environments or e-environments, assuming the connotation of "Digital Health Equity" (DHE). Telemedicine and e-Health, which represent the two main e-environments in the healthcare context, have shown great potential in the promotion of health outcomes, but there can be unintended consequences related to the risk of inequalities. In this paper, we aimed to review papers that have investigated the topic of Digital Health Equity in Telemedicine and e-Health [definition(s), advantages, barriers and risk factors, interventions].MethodsWe conducted a scoping review according to the methodological framework proposed in PRISMA-ScR guidelines on the relationship between Digital Health Equity and Telemedicine and e-Health via Scopus and Pubmed electronic databases. The following inclusion criteria were established: papers on the relationship between Digital Health Equity and Telemedicine and/or e-Health, written in English, and having no time limits. All study designs were eligible, including those that have utilized qualitative and quantitative methods, methodology, or guidelines reports, except for meta-reviews.ResultsRegarding Digital Health Equity in Telemedicine and e-Health, even if there is no unique definition, there is a general agreement on the idea that it is a complex and multidimensional phenomenon. When promoting Digital Health Equity, some people may incur some risk/s of inequities and/or they may meet some obstacles. Regarding intervention, some authors have proposed a specific field/level of intervention, while other authors have discussed multidimensional interventions based on interdependence among the different levels and the mutually reinforcing effects between all of them.ConclusionIn summary, the present paper has discussed Digital Health Equity in Telemedicine and e-Health. Promoting equity of access to healthcare is a significant challenge in contemporary times and in the near future. While on the one hand, the construct "equity" applied to the health context highlights the importance of creating and sustaining the conditions to allow anyone to be able to reach (and develop) their "health potential", it also raises numerous questions on "how this can happen". An overall and integrated picture of all the variables that promote DHE is needed, taking into account the interdependence among the different levels and the mutually reinforcing effects between all of them.
| S-EPMC11041391 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThere is growing emphasis on the importance of both the cognitive and behavioural phenomenon of attention for clinicians engaged in patient care. Aspects of attention such as cognitive load, distraction and task switching have been studied in various settings with different methodologies. Using the protocol described here, we aim to systematically review the medical literature in order to map the concept of attention and to synthesise diverse concepts and methods under the broader category of research focused on 'attention'.Methods and analysisFollowing the methodology described by the Joanna Briggs Institute and Arksey and O'Malley, our scoping review conducts an iterative search of Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Medline (PubMed) and EMBASE (Ovid). An initial limited search based on key concepts and terminology will generate relevant articles which in turn will be mined for additional keywords and index terms to guide a formal literature search. Our multidisciplinary team will extract data into a matrix, including a small random sample of the same studies (to ensure concordance), and present the results in a descriptive narrative format.Ethics and disseminationAs a secondary analysis, our study does not require ethics approval, and we will ensure that included studies have appropriate approval. We anticipate results will identify diverse ways of conceptualising clinician attention and will provide a foundation for developing additional metrics and study methods to optimise attention in the clinical environment. We will disseminate results through journals and conferences and coordinate with colleagues doing work in adjacent fields.
| S-EPMC9196160 | biostudies-literature