以系统性综述中的种族健康公平为中心论文 2:半结构式访谈的主题。

IF 7.3 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of Clinical Epidemiology Pub Date : 2024-10-22 DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111574
Rania Ali , Carmen Daniel , Tiffany Duque , Nila Sathe , Ana Beatriz Pizarro , Alexander Rabre , Danielle Henderson , Janelle Armstrong-Brown , Damian K. Francis , Vivian Welch , Patricia C. Heyn , Omar Dewidar , Anita Rizvi , Meera Viswanathan
{"title":"以系统性综述中的种族健康公平为中心论文 2:半结构式访谈的主题。","authors":"Rania Ali ,&nbsp;Carmen Daniel ,&nbsp;Tiffany Duque ,&nbsp;Nila Sathe ,&nbsp;Ana Beatriz Pizarro ,&nbsp;Alexander Rabre ,&nbsp;Danielle Henderson ,&nbsp;Janelle Armstrong-Brown ,&nbsp;Damian K. Francis ,&nbsp;Vivian Welch ,&nbsp;Patricia C. Heyn ,&nbsp;Omar Dewidar ,&nbsp;Anita Rizvi ,&nbsp;Meera Viswanathan","doi":"10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111574","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>In the context of profound and persistent racial health inequities, we sought to understand how to define racial health equity in the context of systematic reviews and how to staff, conduct, disseminate, sustain, and evaluate systematic reviews that address racial health equity.</div></div><div><h3>Study Design and Setting</h3><div>The study consisted of virtual, semistructured interviews followed by structured coding and qualitative analyses using NVivo.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Twenty-nine individuals, primarily United States–based, including patients, community representatives, systematic reviewers, clinicians, guideline developers, primary researchers, and funders, participated in this study. These interest holders brought up systems of power, injustice, social determinants of health, and intersectionality when conceptualizing racial health equity. They also emphasized including community members with lived experience in review teams. They suggested making changes to systematic review scope, methods, and eligible evidence (such as adapting review methods to include racial health equity considerations in prioritizing topics for reviews, formulating key questions and searches, and specifying outcomes) and broadening evidence to include designs that address implementation and access. Interest holders noted that sustained efforts to center racial health equity in systematic reviews require resources, time, training, and demonstrating value to funders.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Interest holders identified changes to the funding, staffing, conduct, dissemination, and implementation of systematic reviews to center racial health equity. Action on these steps requires clear standards for success, an evidence base to support transformative changes, and consensus among interest holders on the way forward.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51079,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology","volume":"176 ","pages":"Article 111574"},"PeriodicalIF":7.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Centering racial health equity in systematic reviews paper 2: themes from semistructured interviews\",\"authors\":\"Rania Ali ,&nbsp;Carmen Daniel ,&nbsp;Tiffany Duque ,&nbsp;Nila Sathe ,&nbsp;Ana Beatriz Pizarro ,&nbsp;Alexander Rabre ,&nbsp;Danielle Henderson ,&nbsp;Janelle Armstrong-Brown ,&nbsp;Damian K. Francis ,&nbsp;Vivian Welch ,&nbsp;Patricia C. Heyn ,&nbsp;Omar Dewidar ,&nbsp;Anita Rizvi ,&nbsp;Meera Viswanathan\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111574\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>In the context of profound and persistent racial health inequities, we sought to understand how to define racial health equity in the context of systematic reviews and how to staff, conduct, disseminate, sustain, and evaluate systematic reviews that address racial health equity.</div></div><div><h3>Study Design and Setting</h3><div>The study consisted of virtual, semistructured interviews followed by structured coding and qualitative analyses using NVivo.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Twenty-nine individuals, primarily United States–based, including patients, community representatives, systematic reviewers, clinicians, guideline developers, primary researchers, and funders, participated in this study. These interest holders brought up systems of power, injustice, social determinants of health, and intersectionality when conceptualizing racial health equity. They also emphasized including community members with lived experience in review teams. They suggested making changes to systematic review scope, methods, and eligible evidence (such as adapting review methods to include racial health equity considerations in prioritizing topics for reviews, formulating key questions and searches, and specifying outcomes) and broadening evidence to include designs that address implementation and access. Interest holders noted that sustained efforts to center racial health equity in systematic reviews require resources, time, training, and demonstrating value to funders.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Interest holders identified changes to the funding, staffing, conduct, dissemination, and implementation of systematic reviews to center racial health equity. Action on these steps requires clear standards for success, an evidence base to support transformative changes, and consensus among interest holders on the way forward.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51079,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology\",\"volume\":\"176 \",\"pages\":\"Article 111574\"},\"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/S0895435624003305\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895435624003305","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

摘要

目的:在种族健康不平等现象严重且持续存在的背景下,我们试图了解如何在系统性综述中定义种族健康平等,以及如何配备人员、开展、传播、维持和评估解决种族健康平等问题的系统性综述:研究包括虚拟半结构化访谈,然后使用 NVivo 进行结构化编码和定性分析:29 人参与了这项研究,他们主要来自美国,包括患者、社区代表、系统评审员、临床医生、指南制定者、初级研究人员和资助者。这些利益相关者在提出种族健康公平概念时,提到了权力系统、不公正、健康的社会决定因素以及交叉性。他们还强调要让有生活经验的社区成员加入评审团队。他们建议改变系统性审查的范围、方法和合格证据(如调整审查方法,将种族健康公平因素纳入审查主题的优先排序、关键问题的制定和搜索,以及具体的结果),并扩大证据范围,纳入解决实施和获取问题的设计。兴趣持有者指出,持续努力将种族健康公平作为系统性综述的中心需要资源、时间、培训以及向资助者展示价值:利益相关者确定了系统综述在资金、人员配备、开展、传播和实施方面的变化,以种族健康公平为中心。这些步骤的实施需要明确的成功标准、支持变革的证据基础以及利益相关者对前进方向的共识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Centering racial health equity in systematic reviews paper 2: themes from semistructured interviews

Objectives

In the context of profound and persistent racial health inequities, we sought to understand how to define racial health equity in the context of systematic reviews and how to staff, conduct, disseminate, sustain, and evaluate systematic reviews that address racial health equity.

Study Design and Setting

The study consisted of virtual, semistructured interviews followed by structured coding and qualitative analyses using NVivo.

Results

Twenty-nine individuals, primarily United States–based, including patients, community representatives, systematic reviewers, clinicians, guideline developers, primary researchers, and funders, participated in this study. These interest holders brought up systems of power, injustice, social determinants of health, and intersectionality when conceptualizing racial health equity. They also emphasized including community members with lived experience in review teams. They suggested making changes to systematic review scope, methods, and eligible evidence (such as adapting review methods to include racial health equity considerations in prioritizing topics for reviews, formulating key questions and searches, and specifying outcomes) and broadening evidence to include designs that address implementation and access. Interest holders noted that sustained efforts to center racial health equity in systematic reviews require resources, time, training, and demonstrating value to funders.

Conclusion

Interest holders identified changes to the funding, staffing, conduct, dissemination, and implementation of systematic reviews to center racial health equity. Action on these steps requires clear standards for success, an evidence base to support transformative changes, and consensus among interest holders on the way forward.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
12.00
自引率
6.90%
发文量
320
审稿时长
44 days
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.
期刊最新文献
Research culture influences in health and biomedical research: Rapid scoping review and content analysis. Corrigendum to 'Avoiding searching for outcomes called for additional search strategies: a study of cochrane review searches' [Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 149 (2022) 83-88]. A methodological review identified several options for utilizing registries for randomized controlled trials. Real-time Adaptive Randomization of Clinical Trials. Some superiority trials with non-significant results published in high impact factor journals correspond to non-inferiority situations: a research-on-research study.
×
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