ReviewFrontiers in public health2024
An intersectionality framework for identifying relevant covariates in health equity research.
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.
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.
- Article
- Intersectional inequalities in COVID-19 morbidity and mortality in Sweden: a retrospective population-based cohort study.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- Perceived barriers and facilitators of accessing statutory and non-statutory services, in disadvantaged communities, in England: a co-produced qualitative review.Public health reviews · 2026Review
- Using an intersectional framework to explore cannabis and tobacco co-use patterns: Protocol for a descriptive study.MethodsX · 2025Article
- Modifiable Parental Factors and Adolescent Sleep During Early Adolescence.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Association of social vulnerability with access to treatment in ovarian cancer patients.Gynecologic oncology reports · 2025Article
- Income and education disparities in childhood malnutrition: a multi-country decomposition analysis.BMC public health · 2024Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.