Applying an Equity Lens to Evidence-Based Preventive Interventions: a Systematic Review of Subgroup Findings from Experimental Evaluations.

IF 3 2区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Prevention Science Pub Date : 2025-01-17 DOI:10.1007/s11121-025-01765-3
Pamela R Buckley, Charleen J Gust, Sarah Gonzalez Coffin, Sheba M Aikawa, Christine M Steeger, Fred C Pampel
{"title":"Applying an Equity Lens to Evidence-Based Preventive Interventions: a Systematic Review of Subgroup Findings from Experimental Evaluations.","authors":"Pamela R Buckley, Charleen J Gust, Sarah Gonzalez Coffin, Sheba M Aikawa, Christine M Steeger, Fred C Pampel","doi":"10.1007/s11121-025-01765-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Evidence reveals that minoritized groups face disparities, underscoring the need for interventions to address behavioral health inequities. This review examined which minoritized populations are represented in evidence-based preventive interventions (EBPIs) and whether they equitably benefit from these programs. Using the Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development online clearinghouse, we synthesized findings from 240 high-quality experimental evaluations of EBPIs conducted in the U.S. between 2010 and 2023 and performed a descriptive analysis based on consensus coding to assess (1) the prevalence of culturally tailored EBPIs; (2) how frequently tests for subgroup effects were conducted; and (3) whether subgroup tests indicated differential benefits for minoritized groups. We found few culturally tailored interventions (31%), with 4% evaluating EBPIs developed for African American or Black populations and 1% for Hispanic or Latino youth. Additionally, only 25% and 15% tested for subgroup effects by race and ethnicity, respectively. For other subgroups, few (28%) evaluations included effects by economic disadvantage while 47% examined outcomes by binary gender categories. Essentially no reports tested for subgroup effects by sexual identity, location, or nativity status. Encouraging findings were that EBPIs more often benefited racial and ethnic minoritized groups, and there was an upward trend in reporting subgroup tests across time. EBPIs should test for subgroup effects to answer the questions of \"what works for whom?\" and \"in which settings?\" and to better understand the generalizability of findings. Investments are needed in culturally grounded programs developed for historically marginalized populations and trials of EBPIs that investigate mitigating health disparities.</p>","PeriodicalId":48268,"journal":{"name":"Prevention Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Prevention Science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-025-01765-3","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Evidence reveals that minoritized groups face disparities, underscoring the need for interventions to address behavioral health inequities. This review examined which minoritized populations are represented in evidence-based preventive interventions (EBPIs) and whether they equitably benefit from these programs. Using the Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development online clearinghouse, we synthesized findings from 240 high-quality experimental evaluations of EBPIs conducted in the U.S. between 2010 and 2023 and performed a descriptive analysis based on consensus coding to assess (1) the prevalence of culturally tailored EBPIs; (2) how frequently tests for subgroup effects were conducted; and (3) whether subgroup tests indicated differential benefits for minoritized groups. We found few culturally tailored interventions (31%), with 4% evaluating EBPIs developed for African American or Black populations and 1% for Hispanic or Latino youth. Additionally, only 25% and 15% tested for subgroup effects by race and ethnicity, respectively. For other subgroups, few (28%) evaluations included effects by economic disadvantage while 47% examined outcomes by binary gender categories. Essentially no reports tested for subgroup effects by sexual identity, location, or nativity status. Encouraging findings were that EBPIs more often benefited racial and ethnic minoritized groups, and there was an upward trend in reporting subgroup tests across time. EBPIs should test for subgroup effects to answer the questions of "what works for whom?" and "in which settings?" and to better understand the generalizability of findings. Investments are needed in culturally grounded programs developed for historically marginalized populations and trials of EBPIs that investigate mitigating health disparities.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
用公平的眼光看待基于证据的预防干预:对实验评估亚组结果的系统回顾。
有证据表明,少数群体面临着不平等,强调需要采取干预措施,解决行为健康不平等问题。本综述调查了哪些少数群体在循证预防干预(ebpi)中有代表性,以及他们是否公平地从这些项目中受益。利用健康青年发展蓝图在线信息交换中心,我们综合了2010年至2023年间在美国进行的240项高质量ebpi实验评估的结果,并基于共识编码进行了描述性分析,以评估(1)文化定制ebpi的患病率;(2)进行亚群效应测试的频率;(3)亚组试验是否表明少数群体的获益差异。我们发现很少有针对文化的干预措施(31%),其中4%是针对非裔美国人或黑人人群开发的ebpi评估,1%是针对西班牙裔或拉丁裔青年。此外,分别只有25%和15%的人测试了种族和民族的亚组效应。对于其他亚组,很少(28%)的评估包括经济劣势的影响,而47%的评估包括二元性别类别的结果。基本上没有报告测试了性别认同、地理位置或出生状况对亚组的影响。令人鼓舞的发现是,ebpi更经常使种族和少数民族群体受益,并且随着时间的推移,报告的亚组测试呈上升趋势。ebpi应该测试亚组效应,以回答“什么对谁有效?”和“在什么情况下有效?”的问题,并更好地理解发现的普遍性。需要投资于为历史上被边缘化的人群开发的具有文化基础的项目,以及调查减轻健康差距的ebpi试验。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Prevention Science
Prevention Science PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
11.40%
发文量
128
期刊介绍: Prevention Science is the official publication of the Society for Prevention Research. The Journal serves as an interdisciplinary forum designed to disseminate new developments in the theory, research and practice of prevention. Prevention sciences encompassing etiology, epidemiology and intervention are represented through peer-reviewed original research articles on a variety of health and social problems, including but not limited to substance abuse, mental health, HIV/AIDS, violence, accidents, teenage pregnancy, suicide, delinquency, STD''s, obesity, diet/nutrition, exercise, and chronic illness. The journal also publishes literature reviews, theoretical articles, meta-analyses, systematic reviews, brief reports, replication studies, and papers concerning new developments in methodology.
期刊最新文献
A Pilot Study to Examine the Effects of an Emotion Coaching Parenting Program for Chinese Parents of Preschoolers. The Association Between College Enrollment and Suicide Attempts by Race and Ethnicity. Attendance of Underserved Populations at Field-Based Health Services Events: Application of Quasi-Experimental Methods that Accommodate the COVID-19 Pandemic. Model Building with Youth: Applying a System Science Approach to Examine the Dynamic Social Context of Adolescent and Young Adult Marijuana Use. Applying an Equity Lens to Evidence-Based Preventive Interventions: a Systematic Review of Subgroup Findings from Experimental Evaluations.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1