ArticleBMC public health2020
A tool to assess alignment between knowledge and action for health equity.
Article in BMC public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Addressing global health equity through Global Collaborative Evidence Networks: a narrative literature review of governance models, power and participation.Globalization and health · 2026Review
- Examining the impact of naming equity within perinatal substance use and mental health policy: a scoping review.Health research policy and systems · 2025Article
- How to (or how not to)…Enhance equity in the conduct of global health research: dimensions and directions for organizations.Health policy and planning · 2025Article
- How equitable is the conduct of public health research? Findings across case studies from India and Australia.International journal for equity in health · 2025Article
- Indigenous oral health equity: The path forward.Canadian journal of dental hygiene : CJDH = Journal canadien de l'hygiene dentaire : JCHD · 2025Review
- Centering Equity in Evidence-Informed Decision Making: Theoretical and Practical Considerations.The Milbank quarterly · 2025Article
- Fishing with skis, digging with noodles: Resolving task-and-tool mismatches in efforts to advance health equity.Dialogues in health · 2024Article
- Reflective questioning to guide socially just global health reform: a narrative review and expert elicitation.International journal for equity in health · 2024Review
- Decomposing income-related inequality in health-related quality of life in mainland China: a national cross-sectional study.BMJ global health · 2023Article
- Turning the tide on inequity through systematic equity action-analysis.BMC public health · 2023Article
- The Value and Impacts of Academic Public Health Departments.Annual review of public health · 2023Review
- Assessing researchers' capabilities, opportunities, and motivation to conduct equity-oriented dissemination and implementation research, an exploratory cross-sectional study.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Cultural Safety as an Outcome of a Dynamic Relational Process: The Experience of Inuit in a Mainstream Residential Addiction Rehabilitation Centre in Southern Canada.Qualitative health research · 2022Article
- Findings from a scoping review.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2022Article
- Article
- Informing 'good' global health research partnerships: A scoping review of guiding principles.Global health action · 2021Article
- Thinking Habits Determine Possibilities for Equity: Results of a Critically Reflective Dialogue Study.Global qualitative nursing researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Advancing health equity is a central goal and ethical imperative in public and global health. Though the commitment to health equity in these fields and among the health professions is clear, alignment between good equity intentions and action remains a challenge. This work regularly encounters the same power structures that are known to cause health inequities. Despite consensus about causes, health inequities persist-illustrating an uncomfortable paradox: good intentions and good evidence do not necessarily lead to meaningful action. This article describes a theoretically informed, reflective tool for assessing alignment between knowledge and action for health equity. It is grounded in an assumption that progressively more productive action toward health inequities is justified and desired and an explicit acceptance of the evidence about the socioeconomic, political, and power-related root causes of health inequities. Intentionally simple, the tool presents six possible actions that describe ways in which health equity work could respond to causes of health inequities: discredit, distract, disregard, acknowledge, illuminate, or disrupt. The tool can be used to assess or inform any kind of health equity work, in different settings and at different levels of intervention. It is a practical resource against which practice, policy, or research can be held to account, encouraging steps toward equity- and evidence-informed action. It is meant to complement other tools and training resources to build capacity for allyship, de- colonization, and cultural safety in the field of health equity, ultimately contributing to growing awareness of how to advance meaningful health equity action.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.