ReviewFrontiers in public health2023
The intersectionality-based policy analysis framework: demonstrating utility through application to the pre-vaccine U.S. COVID-19 policy response.
Review in Frontiers in public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Tailored vs. General COVID-19 prevention for adults with mental disabilities residing in group homes: a randomized controlled effectiveness-implementation trial.BMC public health · 2024Trial
- Taking stock of intersectionality-informed policy guidance for post-pandemic recovery: a scoping review.International journal for equity in health · 2026Article
- Dismantling inequities to end the black maternal mortality crisis in the United States.International journal for equity in health · 2025Article
- St. Louis enhancing engagement and retention (STEER) in HIV/AIDS care: a participatory intersectional needs assessment for intervention and implementation planning.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Examining gender as an issue of policy priority: a case study of four Kenyan health policy implementation strategies.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Few guidelines exist for the development of socially responsible health policy, and frameworks that balance considerations of data, strategy, and equity are limited. The Intersectionality-Based Policy Analysis (IBPA) framework utilizes a structured questioning process to consider problems and policies, while applying guiding principles of equity, social justice, power, intersectionality, and diversity of knowledge and input. We apply the IBPA framework's guiding principles and questions to the pre-vaccine U.S. COVID-19 policy response. Results suggest the IBPA approach is a promising tool for integrating equity considerations in the development of policy solutions to urgent US public health challenges, including the COVID-19 pandemic. We found the IBPA framework particularly useful in differentiating between problems or policies and representations of problems or policies, and in considering the impacts of representations on different groups. The explicit inclusion of short-, medium- and long-term solutions is a reminder of the importance of holding a long-term vision of the equitable public health system we want while working towards immediate change.
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.