ArticleBMJ open2026
Measuring subjective well-being for people racialised as Black in the USA: a scoping review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSubjective well-being, a measurement of quality of life, varies systematically across racialised groups. However, the use of inconsistent subjective well-being measures across academic disciplines results in conflicting subjective well-being findings for people racialised as Black or African American in the USA. The aim of this scoping review is to provide a comprehensive overview of how subjective well-being is measured for people racialised as Black or African American in the USA and to examine how subjective well-being reports differ between people racialised as Black and white in the nation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review will use the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and report findings according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. A predefined search strategy was used on 17 April 2024 to search PubMed (includes MEDLINE), APA PsycINFO (ProQuest), Sociological Abstracts (ProQuest), EconLit (EBSCOhost) and Scopus for studies published in English. Articles will be included if they specify Black or African American population, subjective well-being, and include populations within the USA. Data will be extracted and presented quantitatively and qualitatively in tabular and/or figure form to describe the characteristics and conclusions of included studies, grouped by subjective well-being component and measure. Analysis will identify methodological inconsistencies and research gaps. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study does not require review by our institution's review board as primary data will not be collected in this study. The findings of this scoping review will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations, and condensed summaries for key partners in the field. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: 10.17605/OSF.IO/M9GA8.
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.