ArticleBMJ open2025
Frameworks for describing health inequalities in observational public health research: a scoping review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionObservational studies play a pivotal role in understanding population health trends and informing public health policy. However, many such studies inadequately address dimensions of health inequality, potentially perpetuating existing disparities. There is currently no comprehensive overview of frameworks specifically designed to integrate health-inequality constructs into observational public health research. This protocol outlines the methodology of the scoping review, which aims to identify, describe and critically evaluate existing frameworks that explicitly incorporate health inequalities within observational studies. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct this scoping review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. Six electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Global Health and CINAHL) and eligible grey literature sources will be searched using a combination of keywords and subject headings related to health inequalities, observational study design and frameworks. Two independent reviewers will perform title/abstract screening and full-text eligibility assessment using Rayyan, while discrepancies will be resolved by consultation with a third reviewer. Findings will be synthesised narratively. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As this study involves analysis of publicly available literature, formal ethical approval is not required. Results will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal, presentations at relevant conferences and communication with key stakeholders in public health and equity research. The results will also be shared directly with charities and local organisations which focus on addressing health inequalities. By providing a comprehensive map of existing frameworks, this review will inform researchers on best practices for embedding health-inequality considerations in observational studies and support the development of more equitable research methodologies.
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.