Vivian Welch , Omar Dewidar , Anita Rizvi , Mostafa Bondok , Yuewen Pan , Hind Sabri , Adedeji Irefin , Elizabeth Ghogomu , Elizabeth A. Terhune , Damian K. Francis , Ana Beatriz Pizarro , Tiffany A. Duque , Patricia C. Heyn , Dru Riddle , Nila A. Sathe , Meera Viswanathan
{"title":"Centering racial health equity in systematic reviews paper 5: a methodological overview of methods and interventions","authors":"Vivian Welch , Omar Dewidar , Anita Rizvi , Mostafa Bondok , Yuewen Pan , Hind Sabri , Adedeji Irefin , Elizabeth Ghogomu , Elizabeth A. Terhune , Damian K. Francis , Ana Beatriz Pizarro , Tiffany A. Duque , Patricia C. Heyn , Dru Riddle , Nila A. Sathe , Meera Viswanathan","doi":"10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111576","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>We aim to (1) evaluate the methods used in systematic reviews of interventions focused on racialized populations to improve racial health equity and (2) examine the types of interventions evaluated for advancing racial health equity in systematic reviews.</div></div><div><h3>Study Design and Setting</h3><div>We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Campbell databases for reviews evaluating interventions focused on racialized populations to mitigate racial health inequities, published from January 2020 to January 2023.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>We analyzed 157 reviews on racialized populations. Only 22 (14%) reviews addressed racism's role in driving racial health inequities related to the review question. Eleven percent (7) of reviews considered intersectionality when conceptualizing racial inequities. Two-thirds (105, 67%) provided descriptive summaries of included studies rather than synthesizing them. Among those that quantified effect sizes, 54% (21) used biased synthesis methods like vote counting. The most common method assessed was tailoring interventions to meet the needs of racialized populations. Reviews mainly focused on assessing interventions to reduce racial disparities rather than enhancing structural opportunities for racialized populations.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Reviews for racial health equity could be improved by enhancing methodologic quality, defining the role of racism in the question, using reliable analytical methods, and assessing process and implementation outcomes. More focus is needed on assessing structural interventions to improve opportunities for racialized populations and prioritize these issues in political and social agendas.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51079,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology","volume":"176 ","pages":"Article 111576"},"PeriodicalIF":7.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895435624003329","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives
We aim to (1) evaluate the methods used in systematic reviews of interventions focused on racialized populations to improve racial health equity and (2) examine the types of interventions evaluated for advancing racial health equity in systematic reviews.
Study Design and Setting
We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Campbell databases for reviews evaluating interventions focused on racialized populations to mitigate racial health inequities, published from January 2020 to January 2023.
Results
We analyzed 157 reviews on racialized populations. Only 22 (14%) reviews addressed racism's role in driving racial health inequities related to the review question. Eleven percent (7) of reviews considered intersectionality when conceptualizing racial inequities. Two-thirds (105, 67%) provided descriptive summaries of included studies rather than synthesizing them. Among those that quantified effect sizes, 54% (21) used biased synthesis methods like vote counting. The most common method assessed was tailoring interventions to meet the needs of racialized populations. Reviews mainly focused on assessing interventions to reduce racial disparities rather than enhancing structural opportunities for racialized populations.
Conclusion
Reviews for racial health equity could be improved by enhancing methodologic quality, defining the role of racism in the question, using reliable analytical methods, and assessing process and implementation outcomes. More focus is needed on assessing structural interventions to improve opportunities for racialized populations and prioritize these issues in political and social agendas.
期刊介绍：
The Journal of Clinical Epidemiology strives to enhance the quality of clinical and patient-oriented healthcare research by advancing and applying innovative methods in conducting, presenting, synthesizing, disseminating, and translating research results into optimal clinical practice. Special emphasis is placed on training new generations of scientists and clinical practice leaders.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
