RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic heightened anti-Asian racism towards East Asian diasporas in North America. Experiences of racism encountered by East Asian communities have been documented to negatively impact their mental health. METHODS: A scoping review was undertaken following Arksey and O'Malley's (2005) methodology to (a) map the foci of literature on racism and the mental health of East Asian diasporas in North America and (b) identify gaps in the current literature. RESULTS: A total of 1309 articles were identified in May 2021. Based on the inclusion criteria, 35 records were included. Two distinct mental health foci were found: mental health outcomes and mental healthcare access and utilization. The majority (n = 22) of the articles focused on racism at the interpersonal level. Six articles provided anti-racism solutions at the individual level, such as overcoming biases. Five articles targeted anti-racism solutions from both the individual and institutional levels, while 1 article addressed barriers at the institutional level, such as dismantling sanctioned power hierarchies. CONCLUSION: The expanding knowledge base on COVID-19-related racial discrimination is reminiscent of previous literature examining the history of anti-Asian racism in North America. Greater attention is needed to navigate impactful anti-racism solutions for East Asian populations' mental health in North America.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Experimental designs for evaluating knowledge translation (KT) interventions can provide strong estimates of effectiveness but offer limited insight into how the intervention worked. Consequently, process evaluations have been used to explore the causal mechanisms at work; however, there are limited standards to guide this work. This study synthesizes current evidence of KT process evaluations to provide future methodological recommendations. METHODS: Peer-reviewed search strategies were developed by a health research librarian. Studies had to be in English, published since 1996, and were not excluded based on design. Studies had to (1) be a process evaluation of a KT intervention study in primary health, (2) be a primary research study, and (3) include a licensed healthcare professional delivering or receiving the intervention. A two-step, two-person hybrid screening approach was used for study inclusion with inter-rater reliability ranging from 94 to 95%. Data on study design, data collection, theoretical influences, and approaches used to evaluate the KT intervention, analysis, and outcomes were extracted by two reviewers. Methodological quality was assessed with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). RESULTS: Of the 20,968 articles screened, 226 studies fit our inclusion criteria. The majority of process evaluations used qualitative forms of data collection (43.4%) and individual interviews as the predominant data collection method. 72.1% of studies evaluated barriers and/or facilitators to implementation. 59.7% of process evaluations were stand-alone evaluations. The timing of data collection varied widely with post-intervention data collection being the most frequent (46.0%). Only 38.1% of the studies were informed by theory. Furthermore, 38.9% of studies had MMAT scores of 50 or less indicating poor methodological quality. CONCLUSIONS: There is widespread acceptance that the generalizability of quantitative trials of KT interventions would be significantly enhanced through complementary process evaluations. However, this systematic review found that process evaluations are of mixed quality and lack theoretical guidance. Most process evaluation data collection occurred post-intervention undermining the ability to evaluate the process of implementation. Strong science and methodological guidance is needed to underpin and guide the design and execution of process evaluations in KT science. REGISTRATION: This study is not registered with PROSPERO.
