ArticleBMC public health2026
Defining the Black population in Canadian health research: a scoping review.
Article in BMC public health, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInconsistent definitions, labels, and classifications of the Black population in Canadian health research raises an important question: Who is considered Black? This inconsistency can unintentionally hinder the comparability and effectiveness of studies, potentially leading to misinformed healthcare policies, ineffective interventions, and perpetuated health disparities. The purpose of this scoping review was to explore how the Black population is defined and represented in Canadian health research.
methodsA scoping review was conducted following the methodology of Arksey and O'Malley and the methodological advancements made by Levac and colleagues. Databases, including MEDLINE (Ovid), PsycINFO, EMBASE, PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, ProQuest, OAISter and Google, were searched from their inception until November 2023. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts for inclusion, with discrepancies resolved through third-party adjudication. Studies were included if they were conducted in Canada, reported race or ethnicity-specific outcomes, and focused on health. Data were extracted using a customized form developed in Covidence software. Study characteristics were summarized in SPSS 29, and NVIVO 14 was used for reflective thematic analysis to identify terminologies and definitions.
resultsA total of 11,935 records were retrieved, and 517 were included. Health researchers in Canada used various terms to describe Black participants, with "Black" being the most frequent, alongside terms like "Caribbean" and "African." Historical terms such as "Negro" also appeared in older studies. About 53% of the studies lacked descriptions of the terms used. Only a limited number of studies explicitly defined the terms they used, connecting their definitions of the Black population to historical events like slavery or migration from Africa to Canada. However, definitions of similar terms appear to be different across studies.
conclusionThe findings highlight a significant inconsistency and lack of standardization in the terminology and definitions of Black populations in health research. This inconsistency not only undermines research validity but also poses a substantial barrier to developing effective health policies and interventions tailored for Black communities. The results underscore the urgent need for standardized guidelines and community-informed and culturally responsive frameworks in health research to ensure inclusivity, precision, and equity in studying Black populations.
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.