Health practitioner regulation and anti-racism: A scoping review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Racism remains pervasive in healthcare systems, driving inequalities for racialized healthcare professionals and clients. The role of health practitioner regulators is to protect the public; however, their actions or inactions may also perpetuate racism. Though there is increasing recognition of regulators’ role in addressing racism, there is currently no synthesized understanding of existing knowledge on this topic. A scoping review following JBI guidelines explored the literature on racism and health practitioner regulation. Six databases were searched: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Citation Index. Leading global regulatory organizations were searched for grey literature. Fifty-four sources were included in the review, with 57 % categorized as scholarly literature and 43 % as grey literature. While underdeveloped, this scholarship has grown consistently since 2020. Sources were predominantly from the United Kingdom and the United States, followed by Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Racism and/or racial discrimination can be manifested and perpetuated within regulators’ organizational practices, complaints and conduct processes, licensure requirements, practice standards or guidelines, education program approval or accreditation processes, and continuing competence programs. Health practitioner regulators can create anti-racist healthcare systems by addressing their organizational governance structures and processes and attending to their core regulatory functions. While progress has been made toward anti-racist health practitioner regulation, further critical analysis and empirical evidence are needed to inform effective strategies. Clarifying concepts, collecting race-based data, partnering with racialized groups, and integrating anti-racism into regulatory performance frameworks can drive impactful reforms. • Racism can be perpetuated or reinforced through health practitioner regulation. • Anti-racism can be integrated into organizational practices and regulatory functions. • Conceptual clarity, race-based data, and performance frameworks are essential. • Partnering with equity scholars and racialized groups in research is a priority.
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it