ArticleBMJ global health2025
Uncovering systemic barriers related to equity, diversity and inclusion in child health research: a scoping review addressing marginalised communities.
Article in BMJ global health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nurse Coaching in Oncology Care to Reduce Stress: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Biological research involving people with lived experience of childhood trauma: a trauma-informed approach.Frontiers in psychology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDespite abundant evidence illustrating the impact of social determinants of health on children and youth from marginalised communities, their continued marginalisation in research contributes to a negative feedback loop that perpetuates health inequities. Previous reviews have identified barriers in marginalised adult communities. However, no comprehensive review outlines the scope of barriers to equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) in child health research across multiple marginalised communities, particularly as they are defined in Canada.
methodsThe purpose of this review is to scope and summarise research discussing systemic barriers influencing EDI in child health research, focusing on racialised and black individuals, 2SLGBTQIA+ individuals, Indigenous peoples, women and girls and individuals with disabilities (identified as priority communities in the Canadian government's research policy). Our team followed the steps proposed by Arksey and O'Malley for scoping reviews.
resultsFrom 3336 identified records, 53 publications met the inclusion criteria. Most studies were based in the USA (n=40) and/or other English-speaking countries (n=14), emphasising the need for global perspectives. Some publications were based in more than one country; others addressed more than one marginalised community. We identified more publications discussing racialised individuals (n=30) and black individuals (n=20) than women and girls (n=10), Indigenous peoples (n=9), children with disabilities (n=7) or 2SLGBTQIA+ individuals (n=4). Publications increased from 3 in 2020 to 15 in 2022, reflecting heightened awareness of structural racism and health inequities during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our findings suggest systemic under-recruitment and tokenism. Other factors in the research ecosystem include misleading conceptualisations of race and other social categories, power dynamics, lack of cultural safety and discrimination. Finally, we recommend applying the socio-ecological model to systematically map barriers and develop tailored, multilevel solutions that promote equity and inclusivity in research.
conclusionTo foster a more equitable and impactful child health research ecosystem, institutions must address individual, interpersonal, organisational and policy-level barriers by embedding community-driven priorities, promoting diverse and inclusive practices, and ensuring long-term, reciprocal relationships with historically marginalised communities.
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.