Community-based culturally tailored education programmes for black adults with cardiovascular disease, diabetes, hypertension and stroke: a systematic review protocol of primary empirical studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Chronic conditions and stroke disproportionately affect black adults in communities all around the world partly due to patterns of systemic racism, disparities in care, and lack of resources. Culturally tailored programmes can potentially meet the needs of the communities they serve, including black adults who may experience reduced access to postacute services. To address unequal care received by black communities, a shift to community-based programmes that deliver culturally tailored programmes may give an alternative to a healthcare model which reinforces health inequities. The objectives of this review are to: (1) synthesise key programme characteristics and outcomes of culturally tailored community-based (CBCT) programmes that are designed to improve health outcomes in black adults with cardiovascular disease, hypertension, diabetes, or stroke and (2) identify which of the five categories of culturally appropriate programmes from Kreuter and colleagues have been used to implement CBCT programmes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a protocol for a systematic review that will search Medline, Embase and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases to identify studies of CBCT programmes for black adults with cardiovascular disease, hypertension, diabetes, or stroke between 2000 and 2021. Two reviewers will assess each study based on the inclusion criteria and any disagreements will be resolved by a third reviewer. Data will be extracted using a customised data extraction form to identify programme characteristics and the strategies used to develop culturally appropriate programmes. AMSTAR will be used to evaluate the articles included in the study. The aggregated data will be presented through textual descriptions of programme characteristics and outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This systematic review protocol does not require ethics approval without the inclusion of human participants and will use studies that have previously obtained informed consent. The systematic review findings will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and used to inform future research led by JF and HS. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42021245772.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".