Table 3

Equity characteristics of participants in included studies using the PROGRESS Plus framework

StudyPlace of residenceRace/ethnicity/culture/ languageOccupationGender/sexReligionEducationSocioeconomic status (SES)Social capitalPlus
Rivara et al 24 Seattle, USAOnly English speaking were includedNot reportedAll but three were womenNot reportedNot reportedConducted in three different socioeconomic areas of the Seattle metropolitan area for diversityNot reportedNot reported
Simpson et al 34 New Jersey/Pennsylvania, USAPredominantly white (77% and 83%, respectively, in each phase)Not reportedFemale (71% and 69%, in each phase)Not reportedSome college education (81% and 78% in each phase)Not reportedNot reportedAges 35–44 (phase I; 52%) and 25–34 years (phase II; 56%)
Lee et al 25 Seattle, USASpanish SpeakingNot reportedAll but two were femaleNot reportedNot reportedNot reportedNot reportedNot reported
Agran et al 26 California, USANot reportedNot reportedNot reportedNot reportedNot reportedNot reportedNot reportedNot reported
Lennon27 Brisbane, AustraliaMost were CaucasianNot reported21 mothers and 3 fathersNot reportedMost parents had at least some postsecondary education (20/24)Centres for recruitment were selected based on SES indicators of the surrounding suburbs (one in an upper SES area; one drawing on lower SES suburbs).
Around half (13/24) of the parents indicating family income. $A60 000 per annum (consistent with national figures for median income for couple-families with children)
Not reportedMost parents were aged between 30 and 39 years (16/24); two step families and at least two sole-parent families
Medoff-Cooper and Tulman28 Large mid-Atlantic city, USAOne focus group consisted of 8 White women; the other focus group consisted of 4 African American women and 4 Latina women.Most participants were employed either full time or part timeAll femaleNot reportedAt least a high school educationHousehold income of at least $20 000Not reportedNot reported
Winston et al 21 Philadelphia, USAFormative phase: African American 46.7%, white 17.8%, Hispanic/Latino 35.5%.
Evaluative phase: African American 56.3%, white 18.8%, Hispanic/Latino25.0%
Among those employed formative phase—44.9% were in service and 20.4% administrative evaluative phase—33% was in service and 44% administrative86.9% female in formative phase; 89.8% in evaluativeNot reportedInclusion criteria was educational attainment of, at most, at most a high school diplomaUnemployed 50.5% in formative phase; 43.2% in evaluative phaseNot reportedFormative phase: 30.8% single, 5.6% separated, 3.7% divorced
Evaluative phase: 45.5% single, 4% separated, 5.3% divorced
Johnston et al 29 Central and southeast Seattle, USAOnly African American, Somali and Vietnamese parents were recruited.Not reported80% female overall (disaggregated by race reported)Not reportedNot reportedLow-income groups were specifically recruited for the study; 63% own a vehicle; (disaggregated by race reported)Not reportedAre likely to be immigrants
Erkoboni et al 22 Beijing ChinaNot reported8.5% were unemployed and rest employed (12.5% medical, 12.5% administrative, 37.5% service)Not reportedNot reportedNot reportedNot reportedNot reportedAged 31–35 (56.5%) and married (98.6%)
Brown et al 30 New South Wales, Australia11 language specific focus groups in Arabic, Assyrian, Cantonese, Mandarin, Vietnamese and Turkish.Not reportedTen groups were female-only and one Arabic-speaking group was male-onlyNot reportedNot reportedNot reportedNot reportedAll participants were non-English speaking in Australia and the study was hence focussed on a linguistic minority. However, majority also spoke English in Arabic and Assyrain group only. Many of them are immigrants (mean duration in Australia is 10–20 years in different groups with the minimum being 1 year in Assyrian and Cantonese group)
Chen et al 33 Shanghai, ChinaNot reportedNot reported Two of the 14 participants were fathers and the rest were mothersNot reportedBachelors or higherMonthly income at or above average of city; all drove to work using carNot reportedYoung age 29–34 years
Nelson et al 31 Riyadh, Saudi ArabiaAll spoke ArabicNot reportedAll femaleNot reported specifically but mentions predominantly Muslim population as influencing perception.Not reportedNot reportedNot reportedOnly pregnant women. Over 50% of the participants were in the second half of pregnancy. For 7 women, this was their first pregnancy, and the rest already had children
Liu et al 35 Shantou, ChinaNot reportedNot reportedNot reportedNot reportedNot reported but all participants owned at least one private car Twenty-five of the 30 participants were native to Shantou, and the rest were originally from other parts of ChinaNot reportedOnly pregnant women were recruited. 76.7% were pregnant for the first time
Fleisher et al 23 USAAfrican American (48%)Not reportedFemale (86%),Not reportedAt least some college education (62%)Primary care practices were chosen based on geographic location to ensure variability in participant race/ethnicity, community setting and SESNot reportedNot reported
Hunter et al 36 New South Wales, AustraliaAboriginal but spoke English as their primary language at homeNot reportedAll were femaleFrom different educational strata; almost equally.Not reportedNot reportedNot reportedNot reported
McKenzie et al 37 Columbia, USASomali refugees and immigrants in USAKey informant interviews revealed unemployment is a problem in the communityNot reportedNot reportedKey informant review revealed that the community has a problem of illiteracyNot reported but says the community has a problem of daily livingKey informant reviews mentions says the community has a problem of adjustment and culture shockKey informant interviews revealed that time send in refugee camps and displaced status has led to mental health issues
Hall et al 32 Sydney, AustraliaCulturally and linguistically diverse group included (also see education and SES column)Not reported95% were femaleNot reportedThree groups of child restraint system users:
  1. Participants in high income and high education brackets (high SES).

  2. Participants in lower income and lower education brackets (low SES).

  3. Participants from a culturally and linguistically diverse background

Not reportedNot reported