ArticleBMJ open2024
Experimental studies testing interventions to promote cultural safety, interculturality or antiracism in healthcare: protocol for a systematic review.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cultural Safety in Clinical Research: A Conceptual Overview and Call to Action.Innovation in aging · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCultural safety, interculturality and antiracism are crucial concepts in addressing health disparities of minority and diverse groups. Measuring them is challenging, however, due to overlapping meanings and their highly contextual nature. Community engagement is essential for evaluating these concepts, yet the methods for social inclusion and protocols for participation remain unclear. This review identifies experimental studies that measure changes resulting from culturally safe, intercultural or antiracist healthcare. The review will describe outcomes and additional factors addressed in these studies. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study focuses on epidemiological experiments with counterfactual comparisons and explicit interventions involving culturally safe, intercultural or antiracist healthcare. The search strategy covers PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, ProQuest, LILACS and WHO IRIS databases. We will use critical appraisal tools from the Joanna Briggs Institute to assess the quality of randomised and non-randomised experimental studies. Two researchers will screen references, select studies and extract data to summarise the main characteristics of the studies, their approach to the three concepts under study and the reported effect measures. We will use fuzzy cognitive mapping models based on the causal relationships reported in the literature. We will consider the strength of the relationships depicted in the maps as a function of the effect measure reported in the study. Measures of centrality will identify factors with higher contributions to the outcomes of interest. Illustrative intervention modelling will use what-if scenarios based on the maps. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This review of published literature does not require ethical approval. We will publish the results in a peer-reviewed journal and present them at conferences. The maps emerging from the process will serve as evidence-based models to facilitate discussions with Indigenous communities to further the dialogue on the contributing factors and assessment of cultural safety, interculturality and antiracism. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023418459.
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.