ArticleInternational journal for equity in health2023
Five ways 'health scholars' are complicit in upholding health inequities, and how to stop.
Article in International journal for equity in health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- How do global health research actors conceptualise inclusion in response to decolonisation calls? A scoping review.BMJ global health · 2026Article
- Embodying well-being in research: key principles and praxis.Frontiers in education · 2026Article
- The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle the House: Reflections on Hope and Equity in Public Health Training.American journal of public health · 2025Article
- Fishing with skis, digging with noodles: Resolving task-and-tool mismatches in efforts to advance health equity.Dialogues in health · 2024Article
- Evaluating the impact of 'Ask the Specialist Plus': a training program for improving cultural safety and communication in hospital-based healthcare.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Turning the tide on inequity through systematic equity action-analysis.BMC public health · 2023Article
- 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Health scholars have been enthusiastic in critique of health inequities, but comparatively silent on the ways in which our own institutions, and our actions within them, recreate and retrench systems of oppression. The behaviour of health scholars within academic institutions have far reaching influences on the health-related workforce, the nature of evidence, and the policy solutions within our collective imaginations. Progress on health equity requires moving beyond platitudes like 'equity, diversity and inclusion' statements and trainings towards actually being and doing differently within our day-to-day practices. Applying complex systems change theory to identify, examine and shift mental models, or habits of thought (and action), that are keeping us stuck in our efforts to advance health equity is a promising approach. This paper introduces five common mental models that are preventing meaningful equity-oriented systems transformation within academia and offers ideas for shifting them towards progressively more productive, and authentic, actions by health scholars to advance health equity across systems.
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.