ArticlePloS one2024
Methods to advance health equity and social justice in healthcare: Protocol for a scoping review on the utilisation of routinely collected data.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Operationalising routinely collected patient data in research to further the pursuit of social justice and health equity: a team-based scoping review.BMC medical research methodology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMany areas of healthcare are impacted by a paucity of research that is translatable to clinical practice. Research utilising real-world data, such as routinely collected patient data, may be one option to efficiently create evidence to inform practice and service delivery. Such studies are also valuable for exploring (in)equity of services and outcomes, and benefit from using non-selected samples representing the diversity of the populations served in the 'real world'. This scoping review aims to identify and map the published research which utilises routinely collected clinical healthcare data. A secondary aim is to explore the extent to which this literature supports the pursuit of social justice in health, including health inequities and intersectional approaches.
methodThis review utilises Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework for scoping reviews and draws on the recommended enhancements of this framework to promote a team-based and mixed methods approach. This includes searching electronic databases and screening papers based on a pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data relevant to the research aims will be extracted from included papers, including the clinical/professional area of the topic, the source of data that was used, and whether it addresses elements of social justice. All screening and reviewing will be collaborative and iterative, drawing on strengths of the research team and responsive changes to challenges will be made. Quantitative data will be analysed descriptively, and conceptual content analysis will be utilised to understand qualitative data. These will be collectively synthesised in alignment to the research aims.
conclusionOur findings will highlight the extent to which such research is being conducted and published, including gaps and make recommendations for future endeavours for real-world data studies. The findings from this scoping review will be relevant for practitioners and researchers, as well as health service managers, commissioners, and research funders.
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.