Table 2.
Extent of racial equity strategies used by paper and by program
| # (%) papers observeda | # (%) programs observed (N = 10) | |
|---|---|---|
| Research Planning/Study Development | ||
| Included CBPR/YBPR or other community engagement techniques | 2 (4.1%) | 2 (20%) |
| Research question/s were directly related to racial equity | 13 (27.1%) | 6 (60%) |
| Evaluators were trained in best practices for working with the population of focus | 3 (6.3%) | 3 (30%) |
| Described why or how race/ethnicity is defined for the purposes of the study | 10 (22.7%) | 4 (40%) |
| Methods, Analysis Planning | ||
| Used mixed methods or stories as part of the analyses | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
| Specifically conducted race equity analyses | 9 (20.5%) | 3 (30%) |
| Participants recruited in ways that were likely to include representative members of the population of focus | 15 (31.3%) | 6 (60%) |
| Engaged in retention efforts with the intention of reducing disproportionate attrition | 1 (2.2%) | 1 (10%) |
| Used cognitive interviewing or pilot testing of measures to understand how different people interpret questions | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
| Conducted validation or reliability metrics for the study sample | 29 (72.5%) | 9 (90%) |
| Purposefully oversampled populations to avoid making conclusions based on small sample sizes | 8 (16.7%) | 4 (40%) |
| Study included features of place (e.g., census block, zip code) in examining outcomes | 7 (14.6%) | 4 (40%) |
| Variables included items related to perceptions of discrimination or oppression | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
| Data Reporting | ||
| Included race/ethnicity in demographic characteristics | 44 (91.7%) | 10 (100%) |
| Participants were able to self-describe their race-ethnicity (i.e., there were not pre-populated choice options) | 1 (2.3%) | 1 (10%) |
| Participants were able to self-describe their gender (i.e., there were not pre-populated choice options) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
| Grouped racial/ethnic groups with small n together as ‘other’* | 20 (50%) | 7 (70%) |
| CONSORT or other description of how participants moved through the study included race/ethnicity information | 3 (6.8%) | 2 (20%) |
| Provided results separately by race or ethnicity | 3 (6.8%) | 2 (20%) |
| Assessed for differential attrition by race/ethnicity | 16 (38.1%) | 5 (50%) |
| Included subgroup analyses by race/ethnicity and/or other areas of intersectionality to assess what works for whom | 5 (11.4%) | 3 (30%) |
| Included information on socioeconomic status of program participants | 44 (91.7%) | 10 (100%) |
| Reported on the acceptability of the intervention to participants, disaggregated by race/ethnicity | 2 (4.4%) | 1 (10%) |
| Analysis plan included examining intersectionality of race with other dimensions of identity on study outcomes | 1 (2.2%) | 1 (10%) |
| Conclusions and Interpretation of Results | ||
| Included community groups to support data interpretation | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
| Indicated limitations associated with racial equity-related considerations | 17 (38.6%) | 5 (50%) |
| Acknowledged the potential impact of structural bias | 2 (4.5%) | 2 (20%) |
| At least one of the conclusions drawn by the paper focused on a feature of diversity, inclusion, or equity | 16 (33.3%) | 7 (70%) |
Most codes can be interpreted positively (the presence of this feature indicates consideration to racial equity). Codes with an asterisk (*) are to be interpreted negatively (presence of this feature is not consistent with best practices for racial equity)
aIf a paper did not include any information about race/ethnicity, many codes were N/A. Thus, there are slightly different denominators calculating the percentages