Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38560446›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in public health2024

An intersectionality framework for identifying relevant covariates in health equity research.

Andrew Simkus, Kristen D Holtz, Eric C Twombly

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Andrew SimkusKDH Research and Communication, Atlanta, GA, United States.
Kristen D HoltzKDH Research and Communication, Atlanta, GA, United States.
Eric C TwomblyKDH Research and Communication, Atlanta, GA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Health equity research uses impact evaluations to estimate the effectiveness of new interventions that aim to mitigate health inequities. Health inequities are influenced by many experiential factors and failure of research to account for such experiential factors and their potential interactions may jeopardize findings and lead to promoted methods that may unintentionally sustain or even worsen the targeted health inequity. Thus, it is imperative that health equity impact evaluations identify and include variables related to the circumstances, conditions, and experiences of the sample being studied in analyses. In this review, we promote intersectionality as a conceptual framework for brainstorming important yet often overlooked covariates in health equity related impact evaluations. Methods: We briefly review and define concepts and terminology relevant to health equity, then detail four domains of experiential factors that often intersect in ways that may obscure findings: Biological, Social, Environmental, and Economic. Results: We provide examples of the framework's application to lupus-related research and examples of covariates used in our own health equity impact evaluations with minority patients who have lupus. Discussion: Applying an intersectionality framework during covariate selection is an important component to actualizing precision prevention. While we do not provide an exhaustive list, our aim is to provide a springboard for brainstorming meaningful covariates for health equity evaluation that may further help unveil sustainable solutions to persisting health inequities.

Indexed as

Health EquityHealth Status DisparitiesHumansIntersectional Frameworkcovariatesframeworkhealth equityimpact evaluationintersectionality

Identifiers

PMID38560446
PMCPMC10979543

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.