Decolonization in sexual and reproductive health research methods: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As researchers and practitioners in the field of global health continue to acknowledge the ongoing impact of colonialism in their work, the call for decolonized research has increased. This has particular relevance in the field of sexual and reproductive health. Despite this recognized need, there is no singularly agreed upon definition of what it means to conduct decolonized research using decolonized methodologies. The aim of this review is to explore the approaches and methodologies used in contemporary sexual and reproductive health research aligned with decolonized systems of thinking. METHODS: This review was developed and conducted in accordance with the JBI and the Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Checklist. In January 2023, Medline (Ovid), Embase, EMCare, Global Health Database, and Web of Science were systematically searched for relevant studies. Relevant grey literature was also scanned. The screening and data extraction were conducted by four independent reviewers using an iterative approach. The findings were analyzed to uncover shared characteristics between the studies. RESULTS: A total of 1775 articles were retrieved through our search strategy, of which 35 were included as discussing sexual health topics, and representing the principles of decolonization. Few of the included articles explicitly self-identified as decolonized literature. Common themes between studies included that most of the data collection was conducted in high-income countries, largely in North America, and the most prevalent sexual health topics were HIV/AIDs, and STIs/STDs. Most studies were qualitative, used community-based methodologies, and included some form of community advisory board. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review identifies shared characteristics of both successes and gaps in decolonized research that may inform the methodological processes of future researchers. It emphasizes the need for more decolonized research originating in low- and middle-income countries, as well as decolonization of quantitative research methodologies. The findings also emphasize the importance of community engagement throughout the research process. A shared definition of decolonization is necessary to codify this body of work. Future researchers should focus on clearly communicating their approach in the methodology so that it can be replicated and become part of a shared definition. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): 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 | 0.170 | 0.353 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.049 | 0.046 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".