Back

SRNT Health Equity Network Survey on Authentic Health Disparity/Equity Research

Addicott, M. A.; Hinds, J.; Mithi, V.; Kypriotakis, G.; Jacobs, W.; Martinez, S.; Denlinger-Apte, R.; Phan, L.; Levy, D.; Osibogun, O.; Mosalpuria, K.; Kumar, D.; Czaplicki, L.; Tan, A.

2024-03-07 health policy
10.1101/2024.03.04.24303279 medRxiv
Show abstract

The Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco (SRNT) Health Equity Network (HEN) Evaluation Subcommittee members conducted an open-ended survey regarding what should be considered "authentic" health disparity/equity (HD/E) research and how the SRNT community defines this term. Anonymous surveys were emailed to over 300 SRNT HEN members, and invitees were asked to complete the survey if they conducted HD/E research or engaged in HD/E research in some other way. A total of 26 usable survey responses were collected and qualitatively coded. Respondents were asked to describe "authentic HD/E research", challenges in their field, and indicators of good and poor quality HD/E research. Respondents expressed that authentic HD/E research investigates disparities/inequalities in health outcomes or access to healthcare services that are specific to communities defined by a social or demographic characteristic. Challenges included lack of funding, a slow rate of recruiting minority populations, and an under-valuation of HD/E research among funders and scientific journals. Indicators of good quality HD/E research were community involvement and a social justice context. Respondents also expressed concerns that poor quality HD/E research could inadvertently harm minoritized communities. As this field grows, we feel it is necessary for experts to set standards for the appropriate conduct of HD/E research, set benchmarks for success, and voice their concerns about the potentially negative impacts of poorly conducted HD/E research.

Matching journals

The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.