Dataset Information

Exploring the literature on racism and health practitioner regulation: a scoping review protocol.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Racism in healthcare leads to significant harm to healthcare professionals and the clients, families and communities they serve. Increasingly, health practitioner regulators-responsible for protecting the public and ensuring practitioner competence-are recognising the importance of reforming policies and practices to contribute to antiracist regulatory approaches. Examples of this work include developing specific standards of practice related to antiracism and antidiscrimination, supporting education and training, re-evaluating discriminatory licensure policies for internationally educated professionals and reforming internal governance structures to address unconscious bias. An understanding of the current state of literature can help identify knowledge gaps and inform the development of research agendas that can build the evidence base required to improve health practitioner regulators' approaches to addressing racism.The objective of this scoping review is to explore the nature, extent and range of literature focused on racism and health practitioner regulation and identify gaps in the literature.

Methods and analysis

The review will be conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines for scoping reviews. Database searches will include OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection. The review will include papers that discuss how health practitioner regulation can contribute to and perpetuate interpersonal and institutional racism, and how regulatory policies and practices can help address racism. We will also search for grey literature using the websites of leading regulatory organisations. Data will be analysed using descriptive statistics and conventional content analysis. Findings will be presented using evidence tables and a narrative summary. Reporting will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews.

Ethics and dissemination

Ethics approval is not applicable to this review protocol. Findings will be disseminated through presentations, meetings with health practitioner regulators and a publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

SUBMITTER: Chiu P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC11253727 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Exploring the literature on racism and health practitioner regulation: a scoping review protocol.

Chiu Patrick P Louie-Poon Samantha S Leslie Kathleen K Kung Janice Y JY

BMJ open 20240713 7

<h4>Introduction</h4>Racism in healthcare leads to significant harm to healthcare professionals and the clients, families and communities they serve. Increasingly, health practitioner regulators-responsible for protecting the public and ensuring practitioner competence-are recognising the importance of reforming policies and practices to contribute to antiracist regulatory approaches. Examples of this work include developing specific standards of practice related to antiracism and antidiscrimina ...[more]

PMID: 39002962

Similar Datasets

Project description:Health practitioner regulation plays a fundamental role in public protection by overseeing and governing healthcare professionals to ensure they deliver safe health services. It also serves as a strategic lever to strengthen broader health system goals such as improving the accessibility of services, the sustainability of health workforces, and health system resilience. Although the goals of health practitioner regulation are easily articulated, achieving and evaluating these goals are far more challenging. Performance measurement and evaluation of professional regulators and regulatory systems are critical to improving regulatory processes and functions. This is especially important where there is rising government, public, and professional skepticism and mistrust of the effectiveness and efficiency of regulators across global jurisdictions. Although there is evidence that some health practitioner regulators and regulatory systems engage in performance measurement and evaluation, the similarities and differences remain unclear. The objective of this scoping review is to explore the nature, extent, and range of scholarship related to health practitioner regulatory performance measurement and evaluation. It will explore existing performance measurement and evaluation frameworks; the key principles and areas of focus of these frameworks; and the indicators, metrics and outcomes used to evaluate performance. The review will be conducted in accordance with the JBI guidelines for scoping reviews and will be reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews. Database searches will include Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection. Gray literature will be identified through leading regulatory organizations, consortiums, and think tanks. Two independent reviewers will screen titles and abstracts followed by full-text and disagreements will be resolved by a third reviewer. Data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics and conventional content analysis. Results will be presented using evidence tables and a narrative summary. Open Science Framework Registration: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/WABTF.

Project description:BackgroundSignificant reforms are occurring in health practitioner regulation across Canada. Within the nursing profession, growing workforce challenges and health system demands have accelerated the pace of changes to nursing regulation policies and practices. There is significant political investment to modernize and harmonize nursing regulation across Canada, and evidence is needed to guide regulatory decision-making. To better understand the current state of scholarship and the gaps that exist, a comprehensive understanding of the available literature informing nursing regulation in Canada is first warranted.ObjectiveThe objective of this scoping review is to examine the nature, extent, and range of literature focused on nursing regulation in Canada.MethodsThe review will be conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines for scoping reviews. We will search electronic databases, including Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection. We will also search for grey literature using the websites of Canadian nursing regulatory bodies, nursing organizations, and other leading Canadian regulatory organizations. No limitations will be placed on the year of publication. The review will include papers that explore nursing regulation in Canada, including topics such as education program accreditation or approval, licensure, standards of practice and code of conduct/ethics development and enforcement, continuing competence, discipline and conduct, regulatory models, governance, and reform. We will extract data using a predeveloped tool. Data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics and conventional content analysis.ResultsA preliminary search in Ovid MEDLINE was undertaken on December 7, 2023, and a full search was conducted in 5 academic databases on March 15, 2024. Findings will be presented using evidence tables and a narrative summary. Reporting will follow the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. This scoping review is expected to be completed in early 2025.ConclusionsThe results will be disseminated through conference presentations and a publication in a peer-reviewed journal. The findings will provide a comprehensive overview of the state of nursing regulation literature across Canada and inform the development of a focused research agenda.Trial registrationOpen Science Framework osf.io/3qk8t; https://osf.io/bm7jv.International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/56163.

Project description:Health inequity between Indigenous (First Nations, Inuit, and Métis) peoples and other citizens is an important policy concern in Canada, as in other colonial countries. Racism in healthcare has been identified as contributing to poorer care and to worse outcomes. Despite a large literature regarding racism in other healthcare contexts, the dimensions of the existing literature on anti-Indigenous racism in Canadian healthcare are unclear. A scoping review examined the evidence of anti-Indigenous racist experiences in healthcare in the research literature, including the types of racist behaviours identified, settings studied, and Indigenous populations and geographic regions included. We identified English and French language journal articles on anti-Indigenous racism in Canadian healthcare settings in Scopus, PubMed, CINAHL, and the Bibliography of Indigenous Peoples in North America, and grey literature reports. A total of 2250 journal articles and 9 grey literature reports published since 2000 were included in screening, and 66 studies were included in the final review. Most used qualitative interviews with patients, but a large proportion included healthcare providers. Most were conducted in urban settings, a majority in Ontario or British Columbia, with mixed Indigenous populations. The largest proportion focussed on patient experiences with healthcare in general, rather than specific clinical contexts. Most racist experiences identified were 'covert' racism, including patients feeling treated differently from non-Indigenous patients, being ignored, treated more slowly, or not believed. Stereotyping of Indigenous peoples as substance users, poor patients, or poor parents was also commonly reported. 'Overt racism', including the use of racist slurs, was not widely found. Some quantitative studies did use standardized or validated instruments to capture racist experiences, but most did not result in generalizable estimates of their prevalence. The few studies linking racism to health outcomes found that experiencing racism was related to reluctance to seek healthcare, potentially leading to higher unmet healthcare needs. Gender was the intersecting dimension most identified as shaping healthcare experiences, with Indigenous women and girls at risk to specific stereotypes. Some papers suggested that socio-economically disadvantaged Indigenous people were at the highest risk to experiencing racism. Types of anti-Indigenous racism identified in Canadian healthcare appear similar to those reported in other jurisdictions. Indigenous peoples facing multiple dimensions of disadvantage, especially gender and social class, may be the most likely to experience racism. It is likely that the experience of racism in healthcare has implications for Indigenous peoples' health, mainly by reducing healthcare access.

Project description:IntroductionThe effects of climate change and associated extreme weather events (EWEs) present substantial threats to well-being. EWEs hold the potential to harm sexual health through pathways including elevated exposure to HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs), disrupted healthcare access, and increased sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV). The WHO defines four components of sexual health: comprehensive sexuality education; HIV and STI prevention and care; SGBV prevention and care; and psychosexual counselling. Yet, knowledge gaps remain regarding climate change and its associations with these sexual health domains. This scoping review will therefore explore the linkages between climate change and sexual health.Methods and analysisFive electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, CINAHL) will be searched using text words and subject headings (eg, Medical Subject Headings (MeSH), Emtree) related to sexual health and climate change from the inception of each database to May 2021. Grey literature and unpublished reports will be searched using a comprehensive search strategy, including from the WHO, World Bank eLibrary, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The scoping review will consider studies that explore: (a) climate change and EWEs including droughts, heat waves, wildfires, dust storms, hurricanes, flooding rains, coastal flooding and storm surges; alongside (b) sexual health, including: comprehensive sexual health education, sexual health counselling, and HIV/STI acquisition, prevention and/or care, and/or SGBV, including intimate partner violence, sexual assault and rape. Searches will not be limited by language, publication year or geographical location. We will consider quantitative, qualitative, mixed-methods and review articles for inclusion. We will conduct thematic analysis of findings. Data will be presented in narrative and tabular forms.Ethics and disseminationThere are no formal ethics requirements as we are not collecting primary data. Results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and shared at international conferences.

Project description:BackgroundRacism constitutes a barrier towards achieving equitable healthcare as documented in research showing unequal processes of delivering, accessing, and receiving healthcare across countries and healthcare indicators. This review summarizes studies examining how racism is discussed and produced in the process of delivering, accessing and receiving healthcare across various national contexts.MethodThe PRISMA guidelines for scoping reviews were followed and databases were searched for peer reviewed empirical articles in English across national contexts. No starting date limitation was applied for this review. The end date was December 1, 2020. The review scoped 213 articles. The results were summarized, coded and thematically categorized in regards to the aim.ResultsThe review yielded the following categories: healthcare users' experiences of racism in healthcare; healthcare staff's experiences of racism; healthcare staff's racial attitudes and beliefs; effects of racism in healthcare on various treatment choices; healthcare staff's reflections on racism in healthcare and; antiracist training in healthcare. Racialized minorities experience inadequate healthcare and being dismissed in healthcare interactions. Experiences of racism are associated with lack of trust and delay in seeking healthcare. Racialized minority healthcare staff experience racism in their workplace from healthcare users and colleagues and lack of organizational support in managing racism. Research on healthcare staff's racial attitudes and beliefs demonstrate a range of negative stereotypes regarding racialized minority healthcare users who are viewed as difficult. Research on implicit racial bias illustrates that healthcare staff exhibit racial bias in favor of majority group. Healthcare staff's racial bias may influence medical decisions negatively. Studies examining healthcare staff's reflections on racism and antiracist training show that healthcare staff tend to construct healthcare as impartial and that healthcare staff do not readily discuss racism in their workplace.ConclusionsThe USA dominates the research. It is imperative that research covers other geo-political contexts. Research on racism in healthcare is mainly descriptive, atheoretical, uses racial categories uncritically and tends to ignore racialization processes making it difficult to conceptualize racism. Sociological research on racism could inform research on racism as it theoretically explains racism's structural embeddedness, which could aid in tackling racism to provide good quality care.

Project description:IntroductionGlobally, nurse practitioner (NP) has become an important nursing role in the pursuit of a more efficient healthcare, possessing the necessary expert skills to work as autonomous practitioners. Nevertheless, there are barriers in the implementation of this role. One barrier concerns the different levels of education required for NPs. Previous studies demonstrate the importance of acting for a uniform international education. The aim of the scoping review was to compile research about education to become an NP, focusing on the content of curricula and learning objectives.Methods and analysisThe six-stage methodological framework by Arksey and O'Malley will guide the scoping review through the following stages: identifying the research questions; identifying relevant studies; study selection; charting the data; collating, summarising and reporting the results; and consultation. The research questions are as follows: What is the content of curricula in NP programmes? What are the learning objectives in NP programmes? The literature searches will be conducted between March and June 2019 in the following databases: PubMed, CINAHL and ERIC, followed by hand searching reference lists of key studies. Grey literature will be searched in Google Scholar, Libsearch, existing networks and relevant organisations. Two researchers will screen titles and abstracts. Included full-text articles will be screened by three researchers and assessed for their methodological quality by the use of the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. The PreferredReporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagram will be used to demonstrate included and excluded articles. The findings will be presented through a numerical summary of the included articles, followed by a thematic analysis.Ethics and disseminationResearch ethics approval is not required for a scoping review. The scoping review will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. Additionally, the findings will be disseminated to stakeholders representing political, educational, professional and union organisations through a Delphi study as part of the consultation stage of the Arksey and O'Malleys framework.

Project description:IntroductionParticipatory health research (PHR) as a research paradigm, guides the research process and strives to achieve positive change in society in the interest of people's health. In this scoping review, PHR will be used as an umbrella term considering a wide range of collaborative research approaches in the health context. PHR is conducted 'with' or 'by' those it intends to benefit, as opposed to 'on' and 'for' them. Their involvement throughout the research process seeks to shift power and decision-making from where they traditionally lay within academia toward community, patient and public end-users. Research cannot be truly participatory without concurrently addressing power dynamics within the partnership and power imbalances in decision making. Therefore, power sharing can be defined as a major factor in building effective academic-community collaborations. This scoping review aims to identify, clarify, and map existing literature on power and power sharing in PHR from both theoretical and practical perspectives. Specifically, we will explore how power is conceptualised throughout the literature, and how power and power sharing are applied and addressed in real-life PHR partnerships.Materials and methodsThis scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the guidelines outlined in the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Reviewer's Manual. This scoping review will consider both empirical and non-empirical research that report on understanding power and power sharing in participatory health research partnerships. All appropriate studies will be retrieved from the following five electronic databases: PubMed, Scopus, Embase, PsycINFO, SocIndex. This review will be limited to articles published in English and from January 1998 to March 2024. As the scoping review aims to capture more than peer-reviewed and published literature, it will also include grey literature such as theses and dissertations, reports, conference proceedings, and editorials. Data from the included literature will be extracted based on the data extraction tool, defined in advance.Ethics and disseminationAs primary data will not be collected, ethical approval is not required to conduct the scoping review. The findings of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications.

Dataset Information

Exploring the literature on racism and health practitioner regulation: a scoping review protocol.

Introduction

Methods and analysis

Ethics and dissemination

Publications

Exploring the literature on racism and health practitioner regulation: a scoping review protocol.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets