Brooke DiPetrillo, Paris B Adkins-Jackson, Ruqaiijah Yearby, Crystal Dixon, Terri D Pigott, Ryan J Petteway, Ana LaBoy, Aliza Petiwala, Margaret Leonard
{"title":"美国解决种族主义问题的干预措施的特点以及纳入公平原则的机会:范围审查。","authors":"Brooke DiPetrillo, Paris B Adkins-Jackson, Ruqaiijah Yearby, Crystal Dixon, Terri D Pigott, Ryan J Petteway, Ana LaBoy, Aliza Petiwala, Margaret Leonard","doi":"10.1186/s13643-024-02679-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>As a driver of racial and health inequities, racism is deeply ingrained in the interconnected systems that affect health and well-being. Currently, no common frame is employed across researchers, interventionists, and funders to design, implement, and evaluate comprehensive interventions to address racism. Consequently, there is a need to examine the characteristics of interventions implemented in the United States that address racism across social and structural determinants of health and socio-ecological levels. Additionally, we utilized a Health Equity Action Research (HEART) framework to assess how interventions integrate equity principles.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This scoping review examined the characteristics of multi-level interventions that addressed racism and appraised the interventions using a Health Equity Action Research frame. A comprehensive search strategy was conducted across nine electronic databases between 24 October 2022 through 15 November 2022. Records were included if they were available in English, discussed or evaluated a multi-level intervention or program conducted in the United States, and discussed or evaluated the intervention or program regarding the health and well-being of racialized and ethnically minoritized groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 13,391 records were identified, of which 91 met the eligibility criteria and were included in the analysis. Most records reported the racialized group impacted by an intervention, of which the majority were racialized as African American or Black (n = 42) and Hispanic or Latino/a/x (n = 18). Eighty-one (89%) of interventions reported health outcomes and concentrated on the individual level. Most funders reported across the records, and 86 (51%) were a federal agency or department. A further 43 (25%) were private foundations, 12 (7%) were nonprofit organizations, 10 (6%) were private universities, and 4 (2%) were public universities. Regarding alignment with the HEART framework, 14% of interventions reported a mixed-methods approach, 45% reported community engagement, and less than 1% reported researcher self-reflection.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Most interventions prioritized people who are racialized as Black and report health outcomes. Since intervention designs, objectives, and methodological approaches vary, no standard frame defines racism and health equity. Applying the HEART framework offers a standard approach for interventionists and researchers to examine power, integrate community voice, and self-reflect to advance health equity.</p>","PeriodicalId":22162,"journal":{"name":"Systematic Reviews","volume":"13 1","pages":"266"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11515787/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Characteristics of interventions that address racism in the United States and opportunities to integrate equity principles: a scoping review.\",\"authors\":\"Brooke DiPetrillo, Paris B Adkins-Jackson, Ruqaiijah Yearby, Crystal Dixon, Terri D Pigott, Ryan J Petteway, Ana LaBoy, Aliza Petiwala, Margaret Leonard\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13643-024-02679-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>As a driver of racial and health inequities, racism is deeply ingrained in the interconnected systems that affect health and well-being. Currently, no common frame is employed across researchers, interventionists, and funders to design, implement, and evaluate comprehensive interventions to address racism. Consequently, there is a need to examine the characteristics of interventions implemented in the United States that address racism across social and structural determinants of health and socio-ecological levels. Additionally, we utilized a Health Equity Action Research (HEART) framework to assess how interventions integrate equity principles.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This scoping review examined the characteristics of multi-level interventions that addressed racism and appraised the interventions using a Health Equity Action Research frame. A comprehensive search strategy was conducted across nine electronic databases between 24 October 2022 through 15 November 2022. Records were included if they were available in English, discussed or evaluated a multi-level intervention or program conducted in the United States, and discussed or evaluated the intervention or program regarding the health and well-being of racialized and ethnically minoritized groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 13,391 records were identified, of which 91 met the eligibility criteria and were included in the analysis. Most records reported the racialized group impacted by an intervention, of which the majority were racialized as African American or Black (n = 42) and Hispanic or Latino/a/x (n = 18). Eighty-one (89%) of interventions reported health outcomes and concentrated on the individual level. Most funders reported across the records, and 86 (51%) were a federal agency or department. A further 43 (25%) were private foundations, 12 (7%) were nonprofit organizations, 10 (6%) were private universities, and 4 (2%) were public universities. Regarding alignment with the HEART framework, 14% of interventions reported a mixed-methods approach, 45% reported community engagement, and less than 1% reported researcher self-reflection.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Most interventions prioritized people who are racialized as Black and report health outcomes. Since intervention designs, objectives, and methodological approaches vary, no standard frame defines racism and health equity. Applying the HEART framework offers a standard approach for interventionists and researchers to examine power, integrate community voice, and self-reflect to advance health equity.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22162,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Systematic Reviews\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"266\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11515787/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Systematic Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02679-x\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02679-x","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Characteristics of interventions that address racism in the United States and opportunities to integrate equity principles: a scoping review.
Background: As a driver of racial and health inequities, racism is deeply ingrained in the interconnected systems that affect health and well-being. Currently, no common frame is employed across researchers, interventionists, and funders to design, implement, and evaluate comprehensive interventions to address racism. Consequently, there is a need to examine the characteristics of interventions implemented in the United States that address racism across social and structural determinants of health and socio-ecological levels. Additionally, we utilized a Health Equity Action Research (HEART) framework to assess how interventions integrate equity principles.
Methods: This scoping review examined the characteristics of multi-level interventions that addressed racism and appraised the interventions using a Health Equity Action Research frame. A comprehensive search strategy was conducted across nine electronic databases between 24 October 2022 through 15 November 2022. Records were included if they were available in English, discussed or evaluated a multi-level intervention or program conducted in the United States, and discussed or evaluated the intervention or program regarding the health and well-being of racialized and ethnically minoritized groups.
Results: A total of 13,391 records were identified, of which 91 met the eligibility criteria and were included in the analysis. Most records reported the racialized group impacted by an intervention, of which the majority were racialized as African American or Black (n = 42) and Hispanic or Latino/a/x (n = 18). Eighty-one (89%) of interventions reported health outcomes and concentrated on the individual level. Most funders reported across the records, and 86 (51%) were a federal agency or department. A further 43 (25%) were private foundations, 12 (7%) were nonprofit organizations, 10 (6%) were private universities, and 4 (2%) were public universities. Regarding alignment with the HEART framework, 14% of interventions reported a mixed-methods approach, 45% reported community engagement, and less than 1% reported researcher self-reflection.
Conclusions: Most interventions prioritized people who are racialized as Black and report health outcomes. Since intervention designs, objectives, and methodological approaches vary, no standard frame defines racism and health equity. Applying the HEART framework offers a standard approach for interventionists and researchers to examine power, integrate community voice, and self-reflect to advance health equity.
期刊介绍:
Systematic Reviews encompasses all aspects of the design, conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. The journal publishes high quality systematic review products including systematic review protocols, systematic reviews related to a very broad definition of health, rapid reviews, updates of already completed systematic reviews, and methods research related to the science of systematic reviews, such as decision modelling. At this time Systematic Reviews does not accept reviews of in vitro studies. The journal also aims to ensure that the results of all well-conducted systematic reviews are published, regardless of their outcome.