MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4403616350 · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111575

Paper 6: engaging racially and ethnically diverse interest holders in evidence syntheses

2024· review· en· W4403616350 sur OpenAlexaff
Nila A Sathe, Colleen Ovelman, Naykky Singh Ospina, Omar Dewidar, Elizabeth Terhune, Damian Francis, Vivian Welch, Patricia Heyn, Tiffany Duque, Meera Viswanathan

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Clinical Epidemiology · 2024
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueHealth Policy Implementation Science
Établissements canadiensUniversity of OttawaBruyère
Organismes subventionnairesRobert Wood Johnson Foundation
Mots-clésEthnically diverseHealth equityEquity (law)Systematic reviewMEDLINEMedicinePsychologyBusinessPublic healthPolitical scienceEnvironmental healthNursing

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To inform methods for centering racial health equity in syntheses, we explored (1) how syntheses that assess health-related interventions and explicitly address racial health inequities have engaged interest holders and (2) guidance for engaging racially and ethnically diverse interest holders. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We systematically identified evidence syntheses (searches limited to January 1, 2020, through January 25, 2023) and guidance documents (no search date limits) for this overview. From syntheses we extracted data on engagement rationale and processes and extracted approaches suggested from guidance documents. We summarized findings qualitatively. RESULTS: Twenty-nine of the 157 (18%) eligible syntheses reported using engagement. Syntheses typically lacked robust detail on why and how to use and structure engagement and outcomes/effects of engagement, though syntheses involving Indigenous populations typically included more detail. When reported, engagement typically occurred in early and later synthesis phases. We did not identify guidance documents that specifically intended to provide guidance for engaging racially/ethnically diverse individuals in syntheses; some related guidance described broader equity considerations or engagement in general. CONCLUSION: This review highlights gaps in understanding of the use of engagement in racial health equity-focused syntheses and in guidance specifically addressing engaging racially and ethnically diverse populations. Syntheses and guidance materials we identified reported limited data addressing the whys, hows, and whats (ie, rationale for, approaches to, resources needed and effects of) of engagement, and we lack information for understanding whether engagement makes a difference to the conduct and findings of syntheses and when and how engagement of specific populations may contribute to centering racial health equity. A more informed understanding of these issues, facilitated by prospective and retrospective descriptions of engagement of diverse interest holders, may help advance actionable guidance and reviews. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: We identified evidence syntheses (a kind of research that identifies and summarizes findings of individual studies or publications to address research questions) that looked at studies of interventions to improve differences in effects on health for racial or ethnic populations to see (1) if and how they incorporated perspectives of interest holders, people with an interest in the subject being studied; (2) what guidance for how to engage or involve racially or ethnically diverse interest holders exists. We found that 29 of 157 syntheses addressing interventions to improve differences in effects on health reported involving interest holders but typically did not provide much detail about how to involve people. Syntheses that involved Indigenous people usually had more information, but overall, the syntheses did not have much information about how to involve people and what the impact of involving them may be. We did not find guidance information that specifically set out to provide information about engaging racially/ethnically diverse individuals in syntheses; some related guidance described considerations about involving people in syntheses in general. This review highlights gaps in understanding of how to engage people in racial health equity-focused syntheses and in guidance specifically addressing engaging racially and ethnically diverse populations. Syntheses and guidance materials we identified reported limited information about whys, hows, and whats (ie, reasons to use, how to do, and resources needed and effects of) related to engagement, and we lack information to help understand whether engagement makes a difference in doing syntheses and when and how engagement of specific populations may help to address racial health equity.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,232
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,441
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche
Catégories consensuellesMétarecherche
DomaineSignal candidat: Méthodes · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Méthodes · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,768
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,947

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,2320,441
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0040,004
Bibliométrie0,0060,007
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,004
Communication savante0,0090,011
Science ouverte0,0030,010
Intégrité de la recherche0,0100,008
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0260,003

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,981
Tête enseignante GPT0,835
Écart entre enseignants0,146 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; l’étiquette directe de Gemma et le classifieur distillé Codex s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeQualitatif
DomaineMéthodes
GenreMéthodes

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations8
Publié2024
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentnon

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Clinical EpidemiologyMême sujetHealth Policy Implementation ScienceTravaux en français237 207