ArticleBMJ open2024
Exploring the literature on racism and health practitioner regulation: a scoping review protocol.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Standardizing Health Workforce Data in Canada: Legal and Regulatory Levers for Harmonized Collection and Sharing.Healthcare management forum · 2026Article
- Article
- Exploring the literature on racism and health practitioner regulation: a scoping review protocol.BMJ open · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRacism in healthcare leads to significant harm to healthcare professionals and the clients, families and communities they serve. Increasingly, health practitioner regulators-responsible for protecting the public and ensuring practitioner competence-are recognising the importance of reforming policies and practices to contribute to antiracist regulatory approaches. Examples of this work include developing specific standards of practice related to antiracism and antidiscrimination, supporting education and training, re-evaluating discriminatory licensure policies for internationally educated professionals and reforming internal governance structures to address unconscious bias. An understanding of the current state of literature can help identify knowledge gaps and inform the development of research agendas that can build the evidence base required to improve health practitioner regulators' approaches to addressing racism.The objective of this scoping review is to explore the nature, extent and range of literature focused on racism and health practitioner regulation and identify gaps in the literature. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The review will be conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines for scoping reviews. Database searches will include OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection. The review will include papers that discuss how health practitioner regulation can contribute to and perpetuate interpersonal and institutional racism, and how regulatory policies and practices can help address racism. We will also search for grey literature using the websites of leading regulatory organisations. Data will be analysed using descriptive statistics and conventional content analysis. Findings will be presented using evidence tables and a narrative summary. Reporting will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not applicable to this review protocol. Findings will be disseminated through presentations, meetings with health practitioner regulators and a publication in a peer-reviewed journal.
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.