Conceptual approaches in combating health inequity: A scoping review protocol

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

Introduction

What are the different ways in which health equity can be sought through policy and programs? Although there is a central focus on health equity in global and public health, we recognize that stakeholders can understand health equity as taking different approaches and that there is not a single conceptual approach. However, information on conceptual categories of actions to improve health equity and/or reduce health inequity is scarce. Therefore, this study asks the research question: “what conceptual approaches exist in striving for health equity and/or reducing health inequity?” with the aim of presenting a comprehensive overview of approaches.

Methods

A scoping review will be undertaken following the PRISMA guidelines for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) and in consultation with a research librarian. Both the peer-reviewed and grey literatures will be searched using: Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus, PAIS Index (ProQuest), JSTOR, Canadian Public Documents Collection, the World Health Organization IRIS (Institutional Repository for Information Sharing), and supplemented by a Google Advanced Search. Screening will be conducted by two independent reviewers and data will be charted, coded, and narratively synthesized.

Discussion

We anticipate developing a foundational document compiling categories of approaches and discussing the nuances inherent in each conceptualization to promote clarified and united action.

Related collections

Most cited references 25

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

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

Adrian Aldcroft, Chantelle Garritty, Simon Lewin … (2018)

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.

0 comments Cited 11318 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews

Micah D.J. Peters, Casey Marnie, Andrea Tricco … (2020)

The objective of this paper is to describe the updated methodological guidance for conducting a JBI scoping review, with a focus on new updates to the approach and development of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (the PRISMA-ScR).

0 comments Cited 1688 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation.

Larissa Shamseer, David Moher, Mike Clarke … (2015)

Protocols of systematic reviews and meta-analyses allow for planning and documentation of review methods, act as a guard against arbitrary decision making during review conduct, enable readers to assess for the presence of selective reporting against completed reviews, and, when made publicly available, reduce duplication of efforts and potentially prompt collaboration. Evidence documenting the existence of selective reporting and excessive duplication of reviews on the same or similar topics is accumulating and many calls have been made in support of the documentation and public availability of review protocols. Several efforts have emerged in recent years to rectify these problems, including development of an international register for prospective reviews (PROSPERO) and launch of the first open access journal dedicated to the exclusive publication of systematic review products, including protocols (BioMed Central's Systematic Reviews). Furthering these efforts and building on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines, an international group of experts has created a guideline to improve the transparency, accuracy, completeness, and frequency of documented systematic review and meta-analysis protocols--PRISMA-P (for protocols) 2015. The PRISMA-P checklist contains 17 items considered to be essential and minimum components of a systematic review or meta-analysis protocol.This PRISMA-P 2015 Explanation and Elaboration paper provides readers with a full understanding of and evidence about the necessity of each item as well as a model example from an existing published protocol. This paper should be read together with the PRISMA-P 2015 statement. Systematic review authors and assessors are strongly encouraged to make use of PRISMA-P when drafting and appraising review protocols. © BMJ Publishing Group Ltd 2014.

0 comments Cited 1658 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Michelle Amri:

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6692-3340

Role: ConceptualizationRole: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing

Liban Mohamood: Role: Writing – review & editing

Cristián Mansilla: Role: Writing – review & editing

Kathryn Barrett:

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7940-2816

Role: Data curation

Jesse B. Bump: Role: SupervisionRole: Writing – review & editing

Garumma Tolu Feyissa: Role: Editor

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): PLoS One

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): PLoS One

Journal ID (publisher-id): plos

Title: PLOS ONE

Publisher: Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )

ISSN (Electronic): 1932-6203

Publication date (Electronic): 15 March 2023

Publication date Collection: 2023

Volume: 18

Issue: 3

Electronic Location Identifier: e0282858

Affiliations

[1 ] Takemi Program in International Health, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University, Boston, MA, United States of America

[2 ] Dalla Lana School of Public Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

[3 ] Department of Health and Society, University of Toronto Scarborough, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

[4 ] McMaster Health Forum, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada

[5 ] Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada

[6 ] University of Toronto Scarborough Library, Scarborough, ON, Canada

[7 ] Bergen Centre for Ethics and Priority Setting, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

Drexel University, UNITED STATES

Author notes

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

* E-mail: mamri@ 123456hsph.harvard.edu

Author information

Michelle Amri https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6692-3340

Kathryn Barrett https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7940-2816

Article

Publisher ID: PONE-D-22-15896

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0282858

PMC ID: 10016682

PubMed ID: 36920932

SO-VID: b17f1fff-7b06-47a5-84fa-511545ee9767

License:

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

History

Date received : 2 June 2022

Date accepted : 19 February 2023

Page count

Figures: 0, Tables: 0, Pages: 6

Funding

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Custom metadata

Data Availability No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. All relevant data from this study will be made available upon study completion.