10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Decolonizing global health: A scoping review protocol

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Although there has been attention paid to decolonizing global health, there is no accepted understanding of the concept. Therefore, this protocol outlines the steps for a planned scoping review to assess the academic literature for discussions on decolonizing global health. Namely, to consider what this concept means within mainstream global health databases and how it can be acted on. We also hope to shed light on who is participating in these discussions. The PRISMA guidelines for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA‐ScR) was used to develop this scoping review protocol. With the guidance of an academic librarian, we searched OVID Medline, OVID Embase, EBSCO CINAHL Plus, Web of Science, PAIS Index, Worldwide Political Science Abstracts, and the International Bibliography of the Social Sciences databases from inception to the date the search is conducted. The inclusion criterion is that texts must: (i) use the exact phrasing of “decoloni* global health” or “anticolonial global health,” (ii) include substantive discussion of what decolonizi* global health or anticolonial global health means (i.e., we will exclude single mentions that do not include an explanation, elaboration, or context), and (iii) be published in English. Similarly, the exclusion criteria include: (i) texts that do not substantively discuss decolonizing global health and (ii) grey literature hits. This protocol establishes the study parameters for the planned scoping review. We anticipate the findings from the scoping review to bring much needed clarity to discussions around decolonizing global health, in terms of meaning(s), gaps, and possible actions.

          摘要

          尽管全球健康的非殖民化受到一定关注,但就此概念而言尚无公认的理解。因此,本文概述了一项计划的范围综述步骤,以评估有关全球健康非殖民化讨论的学术文献,即考量此概念在全球健康主流数据库中的含义以及如何对其采取行动。我们还希望阐明这些讨论的参与者。使用PRISMA范围综述指南 (PRISMA‐ScR) 来制定范围综述计划。在学术馆员的指导下,我们将检索以下数据库:OVID Medline、OVID Embase、EBSCO CINAHL Plus、Web of Science、PAIS Index、Worldwide Political Science Abstracts和International Bibliography of the Social Sciences。检索时间范围从最早期的文献发表时间起直到检索之日。文献纳入标准为,文本必须:(i)使用“decoloni*全球健康”或“反殖民全球健康”这两个准确措辞,(ii)包含对“decolonizi*全球健康”或“反殖民全球健康含义”的实质性讨论(即我们将排除不包含解释、阐述或上下文,而仅是提及这两个术语的文章),(iii)以英文出版。同样,文献排除标准包括:(i)不实质性地讨论全球健康非殖民化的文本,(ii)灰色文献。该范围综述计划为范围综述确定了研究参数。我们期望,范围综述的结果将为围绕全球健康非殖民化的讨论带来期待已久的清晰解释,无论是在含义还是在潜在的政策行动方面。

          Resumen

          Aunque se ha prestado atención a la descolonización de la salud global, no existe una comprensión aceptada del concepto. Por lo tanto, este protocolo describe los pasos para una revisión de alcance planificada para evaluar la literatura académica para las discusiones sobre la descolonización de la salud global. Es decir, considerar qué significa este concepto dentro de las principales bases de datos de salud global y cómo se puede actuar en consecuencia. También esperamos arrojar luz sobre quién está participando en estas discusiones. Se utilizaron las directrices PRISMA para las revisiones de alcance (PRISMA‐ScR) para desarrollar este protocolo de revisión de alcance. Con la guía de un bibliotecario académico, buscaremos en OVID Medline, OVID Embase, EBSCO CINAHL Plus, Web of Science, PAIS Index, Worldwide Political Science Abstracts y la Bibliografía Internacional de las bases de datos de Ciencias Sociales desde el inicio hasta la fecha en que se realiza la búsqueda. realizado. El criterio de inclusión es que los textos deben: (i) usar la redacción exacta de “salud global descoloni*“ o “salud global anticolonial”, (ii) incluir una discusión sustantiva de lo que significa salud global descolonizi* o salud global anticolonial (es decir, excluiremos menciones individuales que no incluyan una explicación, elaboración o contexto), y (iii) estar publicados en inglés. Y de manera similar, el criterio de exclusión incluye: (i) textos que no discutan sustancialmente la descolonización de la salud global, y (ii) aciertos de literatura gris. Este protocolo establece los parámetros de estudio para la revisión de alcance planificada. Anticipamos que los hallazgos de la revisión de alcance traerán la claridad necesaria a las discusiones sobre la descolonización de la salud global, tanto en términos de significado(s) como posibles acciones políticas.

          Key points

          • Although there has been attention paid to decolonizing global health, there is no accepted understanding of the concept.

          • This protocol outlines the steps for a planned scoping review to assess what this concept means within mainstream global health databases and how it can be acted on.

          • We also hope to shed light on who is participating in these discussions.

          • We anticipate the findings from the scoping review to bring much needed clarity to discussions around decolonizing global health, in terms of meaning(s), gaps, and possible actions.

          Related collections

          Most cited references20

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

          Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework

              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies.

              The expansion of evidence-based practice across sectors has lead to an increasing variety of review types. However, the diversity of terminology used means that the full potential of these review types may be lost amongst a confusion of indistinct and misapplied terms. The objective of this study is to provide descriptive insight into the most common types of reviews, with illustrative examples from health and health information domains. Following scoping searches, an examination was made of the vocabulary associated with the literature of review and synthesis (literary warrant). A simple analytical framework -- Search, AppraisaL, Synthesis and Analysis (SALSA) -- was used to examine the main review types. Fourteen review types and associated methodologies were analysed against the SALSA framework, illustrating the inputs and processes of each review type. A description of the key characteristics is given, together with perceived strengths and weaknesses. A limited number of review types are currently utilized within the health information domain. Few review types possess prescribed and explicit methodologies and many fall short of being mutually exclusive. Notwithstanding such limitations, this typology provides a valuable reference point for those commissioning, conducting, supporting or interpreting reviews, both within health information and the wider health care domain.

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                World Medical & Health Policy
                World Med & Health Policy
                Wiley
                1948-4682
                1948-4682
                August 17 2023
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Takemi Program in International Health, Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health Harvard University Boston Massachusetts USA
                [2 ] School of Public Policy Simon Fraser University Vancouver British Columbia Canada
                [3 ] Faculty of Arts McGill University Montreal Quebec Canada
                [4 ] University of Toronto Scarborough Library University of Toronto Scarborough Ontario Canada
                [5 ] Bergen Centre for Ethics and Priority Setting University of Bergen Årstadveien Bergen Norway
                Article
                10.1002/wmh3.586
                a9dba738-88c0-4c5b-b8e2-5d92dfb44fdf
                © 2023

                http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                Related Documents Log