ArticleCanadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique2025
Factorial invariance of the Everyday Discrimination Scale among African, Caribbean, Black, and other racialized women living with and without HIV in British Columbia, Canada.
Article in Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Racial Discrimination and University Students' Mental Health: a Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe Everyday Discrimination Scale (EDS) assesses the mistreatment racialized people experience daily. It is widely used in Canadian HIV research to measure racial discrimination among African, Caribbean, and/or Black (ACB), and other racialized women. However, no studies have examined whether the EDS provides valid estimates of racial discrimination that are objectively comparable across racial/ethnic groups or by HIV status in Canada. We aimed to address this gap.
methodsWe analyzed EDS data from the British Columbia CARMA-CHIWOS Collaboration study of self-identifying women ≥ 16 years of age living with and without HIV. We conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) by race/ethnicity (ACB; Indigenous; other racialized; white) and also by HIV status to assess validity and reliability of the EDS within these groups. Next, we ran multigroup-CFA (mCFA) to determine whether the EDS measures the same construct to the same extent across race/ethnicity- and HIV status-based groups.
resultsOf 504 participants (202 with HIV), 62 were ACB, 152 Indigenous, 90 other racialized, and 200 white. CFA revealed adequate fit within race/ethnicity- and HIV status-based groups-all Cronbach's alpha > 0.9, factor loadings > 0.6, and acceptable fit indices, except for root mean square error of approximation. Residual correlations > 0.4 suggested redundancy between some item pairs. In the mCFA, the EDS was invariant across groups.
conclusionThe EDS provides racial discrimination estimates that are meaningfully comparable across race/ethnicity- and HIV status-based groups. Despite potential redundancy between item pairs that may warrant refinement, the EDS can be included in survey instruments that aim to examine and compare the prevalence and health impacts of racial discrimination among ACB and other racialized women in Canada.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.