Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39587601›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2024

Decolonization in sexual and reproductive health research methods: a scoping review.

Maya Stevens-Uninsky, Aisha Barkhad, Tonya MacDonald, Alexander Perez, Lawrence Mbuagbaw

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Ethical wisdom in family planning programming.Frontiers in global women's health · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors.

Maya Stevens-UninskyDepartment of Global Health, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. stevem28@mcmaster.ca.
Aisha BarkhadDepartment of Global Health, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Tonya MacDonaldDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Alexander PerezIndependent Researcher, Washington, DC, USA.
Lawrence MbuagbawDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs researchers and practitioners in the field of global health continue to acknowledge the ongoing impact of colonialism in their work, the call for decolonized research has increased. This has particular relevance in the field of sexual and reproductive health. Despite this recognized need, there is no singularly agreed upon definition of what it means to conduct decolonized research using decolonized methodologies. The aim of this review is to explore the approaches and methodologies used in contemporary sexual and reproductive health research aligned with decolonized systems of thinking.

methodsThis review was developed and conducted in accordance with the JBI and the Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Checklist. In January 2023, Medline (Ovid), Embase, EMCare, Global Health Database, and Web of Science were systematically searched for relevant studies. Relevant grey literature was also scanned. The screening and data extraction were conducted by four independent reviewers using an iterative approach. The findings were analyzed to uncover shared characteristics between the studies.

resultsA total of 1775 articles were retrieved through our search strategy, of which 35 were included as discussing sexual health topics, and representing the principles of decolonization. Few of the included articles explicitly self-identified as decolonized literature. Common themes between studies included that most of the data collection was conducted in high-income countries, largely in North America, and the most prevalent sexual health topics were HIV/AIDs, and STIs/STDs. Most studies were qualitative, used community-based methodologies, and included some form of community advisory board.

conclusionsThis scoping review identifies shared characteristics of both successes and gaps in decolonized research that may inform the methodological processes of future researchers. It emphasizes the need for more decolonized research originating in low- and middle-income countries, as well as decolonization of quantitative research methodologies. The findings also emphasize the importance of community engagement throughout the research process. A shared definition of decolonization is necessary to codify this body of work. Future researchers should focus on clearly communicating their approach in the methodology so that it can be replicated and become part of a shared definition. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/45771.

Indexed as

Reproductive HealthSexual HealthColonialismHumansResearch DesignColonialismCommunity-centered researchDecolonizationDecolonized methodologiesDecolonized researchReproductive healthScoping reviewSexual and reproductive healthSexual health

Identifiers

PMID39587601
PMCPMC11587638

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.