JBI systematic review protocol of text/opinions on how to best collect race-based data in healthcare contexts.

INTRODUCTION: Racialized population groups have worse health outcomes across the world compared with non-racialized populations. Evidence suggests that collecting race-based data should be done to mitigate racism as a barrier to health equity, and to amplify community voices, promote transparency, accountability, and shared governance of data. However, limited evidence exists on the best ways to collect race-based data in healthcare contexts. This systematic review aims to synthesize opinions and texts on the best practices for collecting race-based data in healthcare contexts. METHODS AND ANALYSES: We will use the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) method for synthesizing text and opinions. JBI is a global leader in evidence-based healthcare and provides guidelines for systematic reviews. The search strategy will locate both published and unpublished papers in English in CINAHL, Medline, PsycINFO, Scopus and Web of Science from 1 January 2013 to 1 January 2023, as well as unpublished studies and grey literature of relevant government and research websites using Google and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement methodology for systematic reviews of text and opinion will be applied, including screening and appraisal of the evidence by two independent reviewers and data extraction using JBI's Narrative, Opinion, Text, Assessment, Review Instrument. This JBI systematic review of opinion and text will address gaps in knowledge about the best ways to collect race-based data in healthcare. Improvements in race-based data collection, may be related to structural policies that address racism in healthcare. Community participation may also be used to increase knowledge about collecting race-based data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The systematic review does not involve human subjects. Findings will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication in JBI evidence synthesis, conferences and media. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022368270.

Use of Asynchronous Virtual Mental Health Resources for COVID-19 Pandemic-Related Stress Among the General Population in Canada: Cross-Sectional Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in profound mental health impacts among the general population worldwide. As many in-person mental health support services have been suspended or transitioned online to facilitate physical distancing, there have been numerous calls for the rapid expansion of asynchronous virtual mental health (AVMH) resources. These AVMH resources have great potential to provide support for people coping with negative mental health impacts associated with the pandemic; however, literature examining use prior to COVID-19 illustrates that the uptake of these resources is consistently low. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper is to examine the use of AVMH resources in Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic among the general population and among a participant subgroup classified as experiencing an adverse mental health impact related to the pandemic. METHODS: Data from this study were drawn from the first wave of a large multiwave cross-sectional monitoring survey, distributed from May 14 to 29, 2020. Participants (N=3000) were adults living in Canada. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the sample, and bivariate cross-tabulations were used to examine the relationships between the use of AVMH resources and self-reported indicators of mental health that included a range of emotional and coping-related responses to the pandemic. Univariate and fully adjusted multivariate logistic regression models were used to examine associations between sociodemographic and health-related characteristics and use of AVMH resources in the subgroup of participants who reported experiencing one or more adverse mental health impacts identified in the set of self-reported mental health indicators. RESULTS: Among the total sample, 2.0% (n=59) of participants reported accessing AVMH resources in the prior 2 weeks to cope with stress related to the COVID-19 pandemic, with the highest rates of use among individuals who reported self-harm (n=5, 10.4%) and those who reported coping "not well" with COVID-19-related stress (n=22, 5.5%). Within the subgroup of 1954 participants (65.1% of the total sample) who reported an adverse mental health impact related to COVID-19, 54 (2.8%) reported use of AVMH resources. Individuals were more likely to have used AVMH resources if they had reported receiving in-person mental health supports, were connecting virtually with a mental health worker or counselor, or belonged to a visible minority group. CONCLUSIONS: Despite substantial government investment into AVMH resources, uptake is low among both the general population and individuals who may benefit from the use of these resources as a means of coping with the adverse mental health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Further research is needed to improve our understanding of the barriers to use.