Analysis of the Hematology Health Equity Literature: Trends By Topic and Disparity, across Journals, and over Time
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: Health equity is increasingly being recognized as a critical priority across medicine. Through an initiative of the ASH Health Equity Task Force, we recently published the ASH Health Equity Compendium (Fingrut et al, Blood Adv. 2024) to describe/catalogue the health equity manuscripts published across the Blood journals. Extending from this work, herein we report the results of a scoping review of health equity in hematology. We aimed to gather published articles together to highlight hematology health equity works, note areas that would benefit from more attention and inspire efforts to spearhead projects characterizing/addressing disparities. Methods: We applied PRISMA-P extension guidelines to develop/publish a scoping review protocol, https://osf.io/exuzc. Articles were eligible if focused on health equity in hematology and published in one of 22 hematology journals 1/1/18-3/13/24 or 46 oncology/medicine/pediatrics journals 1/1/18-4/4/24 which had an impact factor >9.2 or were listed in Clarivate's Journal Citation Reports first quartile or were a major hematology/oncology society's official journal. A research librarian crafted a search to retrieve all articles with ≥1 health equity subject heading or ≥1 title/abstract health equity keyword from a predefined list. Articles underwent title/abstract then full text review and data extraction by 2 independent team members. All extracted data were published to docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rFeGrNVdIDnYEzL9KPB1rqyZUafWGcoN11FsKGUzyCY. Results: The search returned 5,494 articles; 1,009 underwent full-text screening with 602 included in the review. The greatest number of articles were published in Pediatric Blood & Cancer (n=77) and Blood Advances (n=65), with the highest proportions in Lancet Haematology (3.3%) and Transplantation and Cellular Therapy (3.1%). Most articles were about patients, with 64 (11%) about blood/stem cell donors and 26 (4%) the workforce. 132 (22%) had a pediatric/adolescent/young adult focus. 262 (44%) were retrospective studies, with 116 (19%) prospective/trials and 23 studying basic science correlates of disparities. Only 64 (11%) described interventions to advance equity, 20 (3%) social determinants of health data collection process improvement and 1 health equity educational initiatives. Of 427 research articles (ie excluding 175 editorials/reviews), nearly half (204/427, 48%) reported disparities in disease phenotype/outcomes, with 69/427 (16%) on access to care. Of 562 disease-related articles, most (372/562, 66%) examined hematologic malignancies or BMT/cell therapy with only one third (190/562, 34%) about classical hematologic conditions. Most articles (342/602, 57%) focused on racial/ethnic disparities, with 239 (40%) on socioeconomics; 87 (14%) sex/parity; 65 (11%) geographic; 54 (9%) age; and 46 (8%) sexual/gender minorities (22 on transgender peoples). Less than a third (179/602, 30%) considered intersectionality across disparities. Only 12 focused on Indigenous peoples, 5 disability, 8 religion, 9 immigration and 2 incarceration. Only 8 noted partnerships with the populations impacted. Analyzing by year from 2018-2023, health equity articles increased over time, with nearly two thirds (356/545, 65%) of included articles published 2021-2023 versus one third (189/545, 35%) 2018-2020, p<.001. Focusing on the 22 included hematology journals, 491 health equity articles were published 2018-2023, reflecting 1.1% of all articles published in those journals over these years. Hematology journals also had a 75% increase in the proportion of health equity articles in the recent vs earlier periods (0.8% vs 1.4%, p<.001). Conclusion: Our analysis, the first of its kind to our knowledge, highlights recent progress characterizing inequities and clarifies areas warranting further study (eg disparities impacting understudied populations with consideration of intersectionality, across classical and malignant hematologic disorders, and testing interventions to address disparities, partnering with advocates from populations impacted). We also establish benchmarks for the proportion of health equity articles published, within/across journals. This review will serve as an important educational resource to advance equity, helping researchers and the field in general to assimilate the rapidly expanding hematology health equity literature
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,081 | 0,308 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,154 | 0,155 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,010 | 0,010 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,008 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,011 | 0,001 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».