JBI systematic review protocol of text/opinions on how to best collect race-based data in healthcare contexts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Racialized population groups have worse health outcomes across the world compared with non-racialized populations. Evidence suggests that collecting race-based data should be done to mitigate racism as a barrier to health equity, and to amplify community voices, promote transparency, accountability, and shared governance of data. However, limited evidence exists on the best ways to collect race-based data in healthcare contexts. This systematic review aims to synthesize opinions and texts on the best practices for collecting race-based data in healthcare contexts. METHODS AND ANALYSES: We will use the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) method for synthesizing text and opinions. JBI is a global leader in evidence-based healthcare and provides guidelines for systematic reviews. The search strategy will locate both published and unpublished papers in English in CINAHL, Medline, PsycINFO, Scopus and Web of Science from 1 January 2013 to 1 January 2023, as well as unpublished studies and grey literature of relevant government and research websites using Google and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement methodology for systematic reviews of text and opinion will be applied, including screening and appraisal of the evidence by two independent reviewers and data extraction using JBI's Narrative, Opinion, Text, Assessment, Review Instrument. This JBI systematic review of opinion and text will address gaps in knowledge about the best ways to collect race-based data in healthcare. Improvements in race-based data collection, may be related to structural policies that address racism in healthcare. Community participation may also be used to increase knowledge about collecting race-based data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The systematic review does not involve human subjects. Findings will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication in JBI evidence synthesis, conferences and media. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022368270.
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 | 0.195 | 0.309 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.018 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.113 | 0.025 |
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".