Decolonization in Sexual and Reproductive Health Research Methods: Protocol for a Scoping Review (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND As researchers and implementors begin to acknowledge the repercussions of institutionalized colonialism on community and individual health, the need to decolonize research has become clear. Despite this, there is neither a singular definition of decolonizing methodologies nor an overview of the shared principles and characteristics of decolonized research needed to codify this work as common practice in global health. OBJECTIVE The review will identify papers that reference principles of decolonization and identify shared characteristics between them. The aim of this scoping review is to review decolonized research methodologies through the lens of sexual health as a step in creating a shared understanding of best practices. We will further examine the tools and methods used to collect and analyze data within the included studies. METHODS The protocol for this scoping review was developed using the framework from the Joanna Briggs Institute and the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews). The search strategy will comprise a search of electronic databases (JSTOR, Embase, EMCare, MEDLINE [Ovid], Global Health Database, Web of Science), gray literature sources, and key studies. Titles and abstracts will be reviewed by 2 or more independent reviewers against inclusion criteria. Bibliometric details, study design, methodology, community involvement, and other indicators will be collected using a data extraction tool developed for this review. Extracted data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics and qualitative analysis of content and themes to identify common practices in decolonized methodologies within sexual health. Narrative summaries will be used to describe results in relation to the research question, and identified gaps will be discussed. RESULTS The initial title or abstract review of 4967 studies identified by the search strategy was completed in November 2022. In total, 1777 studies met initial inclusion criteria and were sent to a second round of title or abstract review, which was completed in January 2023. In total, 706 studies were downloaded for full-text inclusion, which is expected to be completed by April 2023. We aim to complete data extraction and analysis by May 2023 and expect to publish the findings by the end of July 2023. CONCLUSIONS There remains a gap in the research on the meaning and application of decolonized research strategies, particularly within sexual and reproductive health. The findings of this study will contribute to a shared definition of decolonized methodologies and how they can be applied as a common practice in global health research. Applications include the development of decolonized frameworks, theoretical discourses, and methodologies. The study will inform the design and implementation of future decolonized research and evaluation strategies, particularly around sexual and reproductive health. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT DERR1-10.2196/45771
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.175 | 0.247 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.115 | 0.033 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".