ArticleBMJ open2025
Inequitably harmed: a scoping review protocol on patient safety and diverse population groups.
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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionPatient safety is a central pillar of healthcare quality. However, with repeated examples of failure emerging across healthcare, there is an ongoing need to better understand how the safety of care can be improved for patients. Evidence suggests that some population groups are more likely to inequitably experience healthcare harm. This review will look at what evidence exists on understanding patient safety harm and its causes and impact on different population groups and particularly those from marginalised backgrounds. It will also focus on what actions can be taken to address patient safety disparities and service improvements, including with patient and public involvement. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A scoping review of empirical and grey literature will be conducted following the Joanna Briggs Institute guidance. Medical databases such as Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO will be searched for peer-reviewed articles and grey literature sources such as BASE, institutional and government repositories will be searched for reports, independent reviews, confidential enquiries, etc. These will be searched from 2001 to present for publications in English. Title and abstract and full text screening will be undertaken by one or more people acting as first reviewers and validated by a second reviewer. A data extraction form will be used to extract data including equity considerations following the PRO EDI framework. Data will be grouped thematically and analysed using a narrative approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required for this work as the information used is publicly available. The findings of the review will be disseminated through stakeholder meetings, a peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION NUMBER: osf.io/4mfus.
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.