How effects on health equity are assessed in systematic reviews of interventions

Patient Characteristics Associated With Disparities in Engagement With and Experience of COVID-19 Remote Home Monitoring Services: A Mixed-Methods Evaluation

INTRODUCTION

The adoption of remote healthcare methods has been accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, but evidence suggests that some patients need additional support to engage remotely, potentially increasing health disparities if needs are not met. This study of COVID-19 remote home monitoring services across England explores experiences of and engagement with the service across different patient groups.

METHODS

This was a mixed-methods study with survey and interview data collected from 28 services across England between February and June 2021. Surveys were conducted with staff and patients and carers receiving the service. Interviews with staff service leads, patients and carers were conducted in 17 sites. Quantitative data were analysed using univariate and multivariate methods, and qualitative data were analysed using thematic analysis.

FINDINGS

Survey responses were received from 292 staff and 1069 patients and carers. Twenty-three staff service leads, 59 patients and 3 carers were interviewed. Many service leads reported that they had considered inclusivity when adapting the service for their local population; strategies included widening the eligibility criteria, prioritising vulnerable groups and creating referral pathways. However, disparities were reported across patient groups in their experiences and engagement. Older patients reported the service to be less helpful (p = 0.004), were more likely to report a problem (p < 0.001) and had more difficulty in understanding information (p = 0.005). Health status (p = 0.004), ethnicity (p < 0.001), gender (p < 0.001) and employment (p = 0.007) were associated with differential engagement with monitoring, and minority ethnic groups reported more difficulty understanding service information (p = 0.001). Qualitative data found illness severity to be an important factor in the support required, and patients' living situation and social network affected whether they found the service reassuring.

CONCLUSION

Addressing health disparities must be a key focus in the design and delivery of remote care. Services should be tailored to match the needs of their local population, encourage access through collaboration and referral pathways with other services and monitor their inclusiveness. Involving patients and staff in service design can illuminate the diversity of patients' needs and experiences of care.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

The study team met with service user and public members of the BRACE PPI group and patient representatives from RSET in a series of workshops. Workshops informed study design, data collection tools, data interpretation and dissemination activities. Study documents (such as consent forms, topic guides, surveys and information sheets) were reviewed by PPI members; patient surveys and interview guides were piloted, and members also commented on the manuscript.

Racial disparities in treatment-related cardiovascular toxicities amongst women with breast cancer: a scoping review

PURPOSE

Black women often experience poorer breast cancer-related outcomes and higher mortality than white women. A contributor to this disparity may relate to the disproportionate burden of cancer treatment-related cardiovascular (CV) toxicities. The objective of this review is to identify studies that report racial differences in CV toxicity risk.

METHODS

Medline and Embase were searched for studies that assessed CV toxicities as the outcome(s) and included Black and White women with breast cancer. Studies were selected based on inclusion/exclusion criteria and through the use of multiple reviewers.

RESULTS

The review included 13 studies following a review of 409 citations and 49 full-text articles. All studies were retrospective and 8/13 utilized data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked database. Trastuzumab was the most frequently studied treatment. The proportion of Black women in these studies ranged from 5.5 to 63%. A majority of studies reported a higher risk of CV toxicity amongst Black women when compared to white women (93%). Black women had up to a two times higher risk of CV toxicity (HR, 2.73 (CI, 1.24 to 6.01)) compared to white women. Only one study evaluated the role of socioeconomic factors in explaining racial differences in CV toxicity; however, the disparity remained even after adjusting for these factors.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a critical need for more longitudinal studies that evaluate multilevel factors (e.g., psychosocial, biological) that may help to explain this disparity.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Black cancer survivors may require additional surveillance and mitigation strategies to decrease disproportionate burden of CV toxicities.

Interventions for interpersonal communication about end of life care between health practitioners and affected people

BACKGROUND

Communication about end of life (EoL) and EoL care is critically important for providing quality care as people approach death. Such communication is often complex and involves many people (patients, family members, carers, health professionals). How best to communicate with people in the period approaching death is not known, but is an important question for quality of care at EoL worldwide. This review fills a gap in the evidence on interpersonal communication (between people and health professionals) in the last year of life, focusing on interventions to improve interpersonal communication and patient, family member and carer outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions designed to improve verbal interpersonal communication about EoL care between health practitioners and people affected by EoL.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL from inception to July 2018, without language or date restrictions. We contacted authors of included studies and experts and searched reference lists to identify relevant papers. We searched grey literature sources, conference proceedings, and clinical trials registries in September 2019. Database searches were re-run in June 2021 and potentially relevant studies listed as awaiting classification or ongoing.

SELECTION CRITERIA

This review assessed the effects of interventions, evaluated in randomised and quasi-randomised trials, intended to enhance interpersonal communication about EoL care between patients expected to die within 12 months, their family members and carers, and health practitioners involved in their care. Patients of any age from birth, in any setting or care context (e.g. acute catastrophic injury, chronic illness), and all health professionals involved in their care were eligible. All communication interventions were eligible, as long as they included interpersonal interaction(s) between patients and family members or carers and health professionals. Interventions could be simple or complex, with one or more communication aims (e.g. to inform, skill, engage, support). Effects were sought on outcomes for patients, family and carers, health professionals and health systems, including adverse (unintended) effects. To ensure this review's focus was maintained on interpersonal communication in the last 12 months of life,  we excluded studies that addressed specific decisions, shared or otherwise, and the tools involved in such decision-making. We also excluded studies focused on advance care planning (ACP) reporting ACP uptake or completion as the primary outcome. Finally, we excluded studies of communication skills training for health professionals unless patient outcomes were reported as primary outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Standard Cochrane methods were used, including dual review author study selection, data extraction and quality assessment of the included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight trials were included. All assessed intervention effects compared with usual care. Certainty of the evidence was low or very low. All outcomes were downgraded for indirectness based on the review's purpose, and many were downgraded for imprecision and/or inconsistency. Certainty was not commonly downgraded for methodological limitations. A summary of the review's findings is as follows. Knowledge and understanding (four studies, low-certainty evidence; one study without usable data): interventions to improve communication (e.g. question prompt list, with or without patient and physician training) may have little or no effect on knowledge of illness and prognosis, or information needs and preferences, although studies were small and measures used varied across trials.  Evaluation of the communication (six studies measuring several constructs (communication quality, patient-centredness, involvement preferences, doctor-patient relationship, satisfaction with consultation), most low-certainty evidence): across constructs there may be minimal or no effects of interventions to improve EoL communication, and there is uncertainty about effects of interventions such as a patient-specific feedback sheet on quality of communication.  Discussions of EoL or EoL care (six studies measuring selected outcomes, low- or very low-certainty evidence): a family conference intervention may increase duration of EoL discussions in an intensive care unit (ICU) setting, while use of a structured serious illness conversation guide may lead to earlier discussions of EoL and EoL care (each assessed by one study). We are uncertain about effects on occurrence of discussions and question asking in consultations, and there may be little or no effect on content of communication in consultations.  Adverse outcomes or unintended effects (limited evidence): there is insufficient evidence to determine whether there are adverse outcomes associated with communication interventions  (e.g. question prompt list, family conference, structured discussions) for EoL and EoL care. Patient and/or carer anxiety was reported by three studies, but judged as confounded. No other unintended consequences, or worsening of desired outcomes, were reported. Patient/carer quality of life (four studies, low-certainty evidence; two without useable data): interventions to improve communication may have little or no effect on quality of life.  Health practitioner outcomes (three studies, low-certainty evidence; two without usable data): interventions to improve communication may have little or no effect on health practitioner outcomes (satisfaction with communication during consultation; one study); effects on other outcomes (knowledge, preparedness to communicate) are unknown. Health systems impacts: communication interventions (e.g. structured EoL conversations) may have little or no effect on carer or clinician ratings of quality of EoL care (satisfaction with care, symptom management, comfort assessment, quality of care) (three studies, low-certainty evidence), or on patients' self-rated care and illness, or numbers of care goals met (one study, low-certainty evidence). Communication interventions (e.g. question prompt list alone or with nurse-led communication skills training) may slightly increase mean consultation length (two studies), but other health service impacts (e.g. hospital admissions) are unclear.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Findings of this review are inconclusive for practice. Future research might contribute meaningfully by seeking to fill gaps for populations not yet studied in trials; and to develop responsive outcome measures with which to better assess the effects of communication on the range of people involved in EoL communication episodes. Mixed methods and/or qualitative research may contribute usefully to better understand the complex interplay between different parties involved in communication, and to inform development of more effective interventions and appropriate outcome measures. Co-design of such interventions and outcomes, involving the full range of people affected by EoL communication and care, should be a key underpinning principle for future research in this area.

Evidence-Based Medicine in Otolaryngology, Part XIII: Health Disparities Research and Advancing Health Equity

OBJECTIVE

To provide a contemporary resource for clinicians and researchers on health equity research and implementation strategies to mitigate or eliminate disparities in health care.

DATA SOURCES

Published studies and literature on health disparities, applicable research methodologies, and social determinants of health in otolaryngology.

REVIEW METHODS

Literature through October 2021 was reviewed, including consensus statements, guidelines, and scientific publications related to health care equity research. This research focus provides insights into existing disparities, why they occur, and the outcomes of interventions designed to resolve them. Progress toward equity requires intentionality in implementing quality improvement initiatives, tracking data, and fostering culturally competent care. Priority areas include improving access, removing barriers to care, and ensuring appropriate and effective treatment. Although research into health care disparities has advanced significantly in recent years, persistent knowledge gaps remain. Applying the lens of equity to data science can promote evidence-based practices and optimal strategies to reduce health inequities.

CONCLUSIONS

Health disparities research has a critical role in advancing equity in otolaryngology-head and neck surgery. The phases of disparities research include detection, understanding, and reduction of disparities. A multilevel approach is necessary for understanding disparities, and health equity extensions can improve the rigor of evidence-based data synthesis. Finally, applying an equity lens is essential when designing and evaluating health care interventions, to minimize bias.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Understanding the data and practices related to disparities research may help promote an evidence-based approach to care of individual patients and populations, with the potential to eventually surmount the negative effects of health care disparities.

IL-1β Implications in Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus Progression: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

During Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus (T1DM) progression, there is chronic and low-grade inflammation that could be related to the evolution of the disease. We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate whether peripheral levels of pro-inflammatory markers such as interleukin-1 beta (IL-1β) is significantly different among patients with or without T1DM, in gender, management of the T1DM, detection in several biological fluids, study design, age range, and glycated hemoglobin. We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus databases, and 26 relevant studies (2186 with T1DM, 2047 controls) were included. We evaluated the studies’ quality using the Newcastle−Ottawa scale. Meta-analyses were conducted, and heterogeneity and publication bias were examined. Compared with controls, IL-1β determined by immunoassays (pooled standardized mean difference (SMD): 2.45, 95% CI = 1.73 to 3.17; p < 0.001) was significantly elevated in T1DM. The compared IL-1β levels in patients <18 years (SMD = 2.81, 95% CI = 1.88−3.74) was significantly elevated. The hemoglobin-glycated (Hbg) levels in patients <18 years were compared (Hbg > 7: SMD = 5.43, 95% CI = 3.31−7.56; p = 0.001). Compared with the study design, IL-1β evaluated by ELISA (pooled SMD = 3.29, 95% CI = 2.27 to 4.30, p < 0.001) was significantly elevated in T1DM patients. IL-1β remained significantly higher in patients with a worse management of T1DM and in the early stage of T1DM. IL-1β levels determine the inflammatory environment during T1DM.

How effects on health equity are assessed in systematic reviews of interventions

BACKGROUND

Enhancing health equity is endorsed in the Sustainable Development Goals. The failure of systematic reviews to consider potential differences in effects across equity factors is cited by decision-makers as a limitation to their ability to inform policy and program decisions.  OBJECTIVES: To explore what methods systematic reviewers use to consider health equity in systematic reviews of effectiveness.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to 26 February 2021: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Methodology Register, CINAHL, Education Resources Information Center, Education Abstracts, Criminal Justice Abstracts, Hein Index to Foreign Legal Periodicals, PAIS International, Social Services Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, Digital Dissertations and the Health Technology Assessment Database. We searched SCOPUS to identify articles that cited any of the included studies on 10 June 10 2021. We contacted authors and searched the reference lists of included studies to identify additional potentially relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included empirical studies of cohorts of systematic reviews that assessed methods for measuring effects on health inequalities. We define health inequalities as unfair and avoidable differences across socially stratifying factors that limit opportunities for health. We operationalised this by assessing studies which evaluated differences in health across any component of the PROGRESS-Plus acronym, which stands for Place of residence, Race/ethnicity/culture/language, Occupation, Gender or sex, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status, Social capital. "Plus" stands for other factors associated with discrimination, exclusion, marginalisation or vulnerability such as personal characteristics (e.g. age, disability), relationships that limit opportunities for health (e.g. children in a household with parents who smoke) or environmental situations which provide limited control of opportunities for health (e.g. school food environment).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data using a pre-tested form. Risk of bias was appraised for included studies according to the potential for bias in selection and detection of systematic reviews.  MAIN RESULTS: In total, 48,814 studies were identified and the titles and abstracts were screened in duplicate. In this updated review, we identified an additional 124 methodological studies published in the 10 years since the first version of this review, which included 34 studies. Thus, 158 methodological studies met our criteria for inclusion. The methods used by these studies focused on evidence relevant to populations experiencing health inequity (108 out of 158 studies), assess subgroup analysis across PROGRESS-Plus (26 out of 158 studies), assess analysis of a gradient in effect across PROGRESS-Plus (2 out of 158 studies) or use a combination of subgroup analysis and focused approaches (20 out of 158 studies). The most common PROGRESS-Plus factors assessed were age (43 studies), socioeconomic status in 35 studies, low- and middle-income countries in 24 studies, gender or sex in 22 studies, race or ethnicity in 17 studies, and four studies assessed multiple factors across which health inequity may exist. Only 16 studies provided a definition of health inequity. Five methodological approaches to consider health equity in systematic reviews of effectiveness were identified: 1) descriptive assessment of reporting and analysis in systematic reviews (140 of 158 studies used a type of descriptive method); 2) descriptive assessment of reporting and analysis in original trials (50 studies); 3) analytic approaches which assessed differential effects across one or more PROGRESS-Plus factors (16 studies); 4) applicability assessment (25 studies) and 5) stakeholder engagement (28 studies), which is a new finding in this update and examines the appraisal of whether relevant stakeholders with lived experience of health inequity were included in the design of systematic reviews or design and delivery of interventions. Reporting for both approaches (analytic and applicability) lacked transparency and was insufficiently detailed to enable the assessment of credibility.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is a need for improvement in conceptual clarity about the definition of health equity, describing sufficient detail about analytic approaches (including subgroup analyses) and transparent reporting of judgments required for applicability assessments in order to consider health equity in systematic reviews of effectiveness.

Improving Social Justice in COVID-19 Health Research: Interim Guidelines for Reporting Health Equity in Observational Studies

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the global imperative to address health inequities. Observational studies are a valuable source of evidence for real-world effects and impacts of implementing COVID-19 policies on the redistribution of inequities. We assembled a diverse global multi-disciplinary team to develop interim guidance for improving transparency in reporting health equity in COVID-19 observational studies. We identified 14 areas in the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) checklist that need additional detail to encourage transparent reporting of health equity. We searched for examples of COVID-19 observational studies that analysed and reported health equity analysis across one or more social determinants of health. We engaged with Indigenous stakeholders and others groups experiencing health inequities to co-produce this guidance and to bring an intersectional lens. Taking health equity and social determinants of health into account contributes to the clinical and epidemiological understanding of the disease, identifying specific needs and supporting decision-making processes. Stakeholders are encouraged to consider using this guidance on observational research to help provide evidence to close the inequitable gaps in health outcomes.

Which public health interventions are effective in reducing morbidity, mortality and health inequalities from infectious diseases amongst children in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs): An umbrella review

Despite significant progress in the last few decades, infectious diseases remain a major threat to child health in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)-particularly amongst more disadvantaged groups. It is imperative to understand the best available evidence concerning which public health interventions reduce morbidity, mortality and health inequalities in children aged under five years. To address this gap, we carried out an umbrella review (a systematic reviews of reviews) to identify evidence on the effects of public health interventions (promotion, protection, prevention) on morbidity, mortality and/or health inequalities due to infectious diseases amongst children in LMICs. Ten databases were searched for records published between 2014-2021 alongside a manual search of gray literature. Articles were quality-assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews tool (AMSTAR 2). A narrative synthesis was conducted. We identified 60 systematic reviews synthesizing 453 individual primary studies. A majority of the reviews reported on preventive interventions (n = 48), with a minority on promotion (n = 17) and almost no reviews covering health protection interventions (n = 2). Effective interventions for improving child health across the whole population, as well as the most disadvantaged included communication, education and social mobilization for specific preventive services or tools, such as immunization or bed nets. For all other interventions, the effects were either unclear, unknown or detrimental, either at the overall population level or regarding health inequalities. We found few reviews reporting health inequalities information and the quality of the evidence base was generally low. Our umbrella review identified some prevention interventions that might be useful in reducing under five mortality from infectious diseases in LMICs, particularly amongst the most disadvantaged groups.

A comprehensive review of prioritised interventions to improve the health and wellbeing of persons with lived experience of homelessness

Background

Homelessness has emerged as a public health priority, with growing numbers of vulnerable populations despite advances in social welfare. In February 2020, the United Nations passed a historic resolution, identifying the need to adopt social-protection systems and ensure access to safe and affordable housing for all. The establishment of housing stability is a critical outcome that intersects with other social inequities. Prior research has shown that in comparison to the general population, people experiencing homelessness have higher rates of infectious diseases, chronic illnesses, and mental-health disorders, along with disproportionately poorer outcomes. Hence, there is an urgent need to identify effective interventions to improve the lives of people living with homelessness.

Objectives

The objective of this systematic review is to identify, appraise, and synthesise the best available evidence on the benefits and cost-effectiveness of interventions to improve the health and social outcomes of people experiencing homelessness.

Search Methods

In consultation with an information scientist, we searched nine bibliographic databases, including Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL, from database inception to February 10, 2020 using keywords and MeSH terms. We conducted a focused grey literature search and consulted experts for additional studies.

Selection Criteria

Teams of two reviewers independently screened studies against our inclusion criteria. We included randomised control trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental studies conducted among populations experiencing homelessness in high-income countries. Eligible interventions included permanent supportive housing (PSH), income assistance, standard case management (SCM), peer support, mental health interventions such as assertive community treatment (ACT), intensive case management (ICM), critical time intervention (CTI) and injectable antipsychotics, and substance-use interventions, including supervised consumption facilities (SCFs), managed alcohol programmes and opioid agonist therapy. Outcomes of interest were housing stability, mental health, quality of life, substance use, hospitalisations, employment and income.

Data Collection and Analysis

Teams of two reviewers extracted data in duplicate and independently. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. We performed our statistical analyses using RevMan 5.3. For dichotomous data, we used odds ratios and risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals. For continuous data, we used the mean difference (MD) with a 95% CI if the outcomes were measured in the same way between trials. We used the standardised mean difference with a 95% CI to combine trials that measured the same outcome but used different methods of measurement. Whenever possible, we pooled effect estimates using a random-effects model.

Main Results

The search resulted in 15,889 citations. We included 86 studies (128 citations) that examined the effectiveness and/or cost-effectiveness of interventions for people with lived experience of homelessness. Studies were conducted in the United States (73), Canada (8), United Kingdom (2), the Netherlands (2) and Australia (1). The studies were of low to moderate certainty, with several concerns regarding the risk of bias. PSH was found to have significant benefits on housing stability as compared to usual care. These benefits impacted both high- and moderate-needs populations with significant cimorbid mental illness and substance-use disorders. PSH may also reduce emergency department visits and days spent hospitalised. Most studies found no significant benefit of PSH on mental-health or substance-use outcomes. The effect on quality of life was also mixed and unclear. In one study, PSH resulted in lower odds of obtaining employment. The effect on income showed no significant differences. Income assistance appeared to have some benefits in improving housing stability, particularly in the form of rental subsidies. Although short-term improvement in depression and perceived stress levels were reported, no evidence of the long-term effect on mental health measures was found. No consistent impact on the outcomes of quality of life, substance use, hospitalisations, employment status, or earned income could be detected when compared with usual services. SCM interventions may have a small beneficial effect on housing stability, though results were mixed. Results for peer support interventions were also mixed, though no benefit was noted in housing stability specifically. Mental health interventions (ICM, ACT, CTI) appeared to reduce the number of days homeless and had varied effects on psychiatric symptoms, quality of life, and substance use over time. Cost analyses of PSH interventions reported mixed results. Seven studies showed that PSH interventions were associated with increased cost to payers and that the cost of the interventions were only partially offset by savings in medical- and social-services costs. Six studies revealed that PSH interventions saved the payers money. Two studies focused on the cost-effectiveness of income-assistance interventions. For each additional day housed, clients who received income assistance incurred additional costs of US$45 (95% CI, -$19, -$108) from the societal perspective. In addition, the benefits gained from temporary financial assistance were found to outweigh the costs, with a net savings of US$20,548. The economic implications of case management interventions (SCM, ICM, ACT, CTI) was highly uncertain. SCM clients were found to incur higher costs than those receiving the usual care. For ICM, all included studies suggested that the intervention may be cost-offset or cost-effective. Regarding ACT, included studies consistently revealed that ACT saved payers money and improved health outcomes than usual care. Despite having comparable costs (US$52,574 vs. US$51,749), CTI led to greater nonhomeless nights (508 vs. 450 nights) compared to usual services.

Authors' Conclusions

PSH interventions improved housing stability for people living with homelessness. High-intensity case management and income-assistance interventions may also benefit housing stability. The majority of included interventions inconsistently detected benefits for mental health, quality of life, substance use, employment and income. These results have important implications for public health, social policy, and community programme implementation. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the urgent need to tackle systemic inequality and address social determinants of health. Our review provides timely evidence on PSH, income assistance, and mental health interventions as a means of improving housing stability. PSH has major cost and policy implications and this approach could play a key role in ending homelessness. Evidence-based reviews like this one can guide practice and outcome research and contribute to advancing international networks committed to solving homelessness.

Quality of information in news media reports about the effects of health interventions: Systematic review and meta-analyses

Background Many studies have assessed the quality of news reports about the effects of health interventions, but there has been no systematic review of such studies or meta-analysis of their results. We aimed to fill this gap (PROSPERO ID: CRD42018095032). Methods We included studies that used at least one explicit, prespecified and generic criterion to assess the quality of news reports in print, broadcast, or online news media, and specified the sampling frame, and the selection criteria and technique. We assessed criteria individually for inclusion in the meta-analyses, excluding ineligible criteria and criteria with inadequately reported results. We mapped and grouped criteria to facilitate evidence synthesis. Where possible, we extracted the proportion of news reports meeting the included criterion. We performed meta-analyses using a random effects model to estimate such proportions for individual criteria and some criteria groups, and to characterise heterogeneity across studies.  Results We included 44 primary studies in the review, and 18 studies and 108 quality criteria in the meta-analyses. Many news reports gave an unbalanced and oversimplified picture of the potential consequences of interventions. A limited number mention or adequately address conflicts of interest (22%; 95% CI 7%-49%) (low certainty), alternative interventions (36%; 95% CI 26%-47%) (moderate certainty), potential harms (40%; 95% CI 23%-61%) (low certainty), or costs (18%; 95% CI 12%-28%) (moderate certainty), or quantify effects (53%; 95% CI 36%-69%) (low certainty) or report absolute effects (17%; 95% CI 4%-49%) (low certainty).  Discussion There is room for improving health news, but it is logically more important to improve the public's ability to critically appraise health information and make judgements for themselves.

Quality of information in news media reports about the effects of health interventions: Systematic review and meta-analyses

Background Many studies have assessed the quality of news reports about the effects of health interventions, but there has been no systematic review of such studies or meta-analysis of their results. We aimed to fill this gap (PROSPERO ID: CRD42018095032). Methods We included studies that used at least one explicit, prespecified and generic criterion to assess the quality of news reports in print, broadcast, or online news media, and specified the sampling frame, and the selection criteria and technique. We assessed criteria individually for inclusion in the meta-analyses, excluding inappropriate criteria and criteria with inadequately reported results. We mapped and grouped criteria to facilitate evidence synthesis. Where possible, we extracted the proportion of news reports meeting the included criterion. We performed meta-analyses using a random effects model to estimate such proportions for individual criteria and some criteria groups, and to characterise heterogeneity across studies.  Results We included 44 primary studies in the qualitative summary, and 18 studies and 108 quality criteria in the meta-analyses. Many news reports gave an unbalanced and oversimplified picture of the potential consequences of interventions. A limited number mention or adequately address conflicts of interest (22%; 95% CI 7%-49%) (low certainty), alternative interventions (36%; 95% CI 26%-47%) (moderate certainty), potential harms (40%; 95% CI 23%-61%) (low certainty), or costs (18%; 95% CI 12%-28%) (moderate certainty), or quantify effects (53%; 95% CI 36%-69%) (low certainty) or report absolute effects (17%; 95% CI 4%-49%) (low certainty).  Discussion There is room for improving health news, but it is logically more important to improve the public's ability to critically appraise health information and make judgements for themselves.

Evidence-informed interventions and best practices for supporting women experiencing or at risk of homelessness: a scoping review with gender and equity analysis

INTRODUCTION

While much of the literature on homelessness is centred on the experience of men, women make up over one-quarter of Canada's homeless population. Research has shown that women experiencing homelessness are often hidden (i.e. provisionally housed) and have different pathways into homelessness and different needs as compared to men. The objective of this research is to identify evidence-based interventions and best practices to better support women experiencing or at risk of homelessness.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review with a gender and equity analysis. This involved searching MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and other databases for systematic reviews and randomized trials, supplementing our search through reference scanning and grey literature, followed by a qualitative synthesis of the evidence that examined gender and equity considerations.

RESULTS

Of the 4102 articles identified on homelessness interventions, only 4 systematic reviews and 9 randomized trials were exclusively conducted on women or published disaggregated data enabling a gender analysis. Interventions with the strongest evidence included post-shelter advocacy counselling for women experiencing homelessness due to intimate partner violence, as well as case management and permanent housing subsidies (e.g. tenant-based rental assistance vouchers), which were shown to reduce homelessness, food insecurity, exposure to violence and psychosocial distress, as well as promote school stability and child well-being.

CONCLUSION

Much of the evidence on interventions to better support women experiencing homelessness focusses on those accessing domestic violence or family shelters. Since many more women are experiencing or at risk of hidden homelessness, population-based strategies are also needed to reduce gender inequity and exposure to violence, which are among the main structural drivers of homelessness among women.

A protocol for a scoping review of equity measurement in mental health care for children and youth

BACKGROUND

Mental health (MH) problems are among the most important causes of morbidity and mortality for children and youth. Problems of lack of equity in child and youth MH services (CYMHS)-including, but not limited to, problems in inaccessibility and quality of services-are widespread. Characterizing the nature of equity in CYMHS is an ongoing challenge because the field lacks a consistent approach to conceptualizing equity. We will conduct a scoping review of how equity in MH services for children and youth has been defined, operationalized, and measured. Our objectives are to discover: (1) What conceptual definitions of equity are used by observational studies of CYMHS?; (2) What service characteristics of CYMHS care do indices of equity cover?; (3) What population dimensions have been used to operationalize equity?; (4) What statistical constructs have been used in indices that measure CYMHS equity?; and (5) What were the numerical values of those indices?

METHODS

The following databases will be searched: Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, CINAHL, EconLit, and Sociological Abstracts. Searches will be conducted from the date of inception to the end of the last full calendar year (December 2019). Studies will be included if they include an evaluation of a mental health service for children or youth (defined as those under 19 years of age) and which quantify variation in some aspect of child or youth mental health services (e.g., accessibility, volume, duration, or quality) as a function of socio-demographic and/or geographic variables. Study selection will occur over two stages. Stage one will select articles based on title and abstract using the liberal-accelerated method. Stage two will review the full texts of selected titles. Two reviewers will work independently on full-text reviewing, with each study screened twice using pre-specified eligibility criteria. One reviewer will chart study characteristics and indices to be verified by a second reviewer. Reviewers will resolve full-text screening and data extraction disagreements through discussion. Synthesis of the collected data will focus on compiling and mapping the types and characteristics of the indices used to evaluate MH services equity.

DISCUSSION

The planned, systematic scoping review will survey the literature regarding how equity in MH services for children and youth has been operationalized and help inform future studies of equity in CYMHS.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

Open Science Foundation ID SYSR-D-19-00371, https://osf.io/58srv/ .

Do multiple community-based interventions on health promotion tackle health inequalities?

BACKGROUND

Previous systematic reviews of the impact of multi-component community-based health promotion interventions on reducing health inequalities by socio-economic status (SES) were restricted to physical activity and smoking behavior, and revealed limited and rather disillusioning evidence. Therefore, we conducted a comprehensive review worldwide to close this gap, including a wide range of health outcomes.

METHODS

The Pubmed and PsycINFO databases were screened for relevant articles published between January 1999 and August 2019, revealing 87 potentially eligible publications out of 2876 hits. In addition, three studies out of a prior review on the effectiveness of community-based interventions were reanalyzed under the new research question. After a systematic review process, 23 papers met the inclusion criteria and were included in the synthesis.

RESULTS

More than half (56.5%) of the studies reported improvements of socially disadvantaged communities overall (i.e. reduced inequalities at the area level) in at least one health behavior and/or health status outcome. Amongst the remaining studies we found some beneficial effects in the most deprived sub-groups of residents (8.2%) and studies with no differences between intervention and control areas (34.8%). There was no evidence that any program under review resulted in an increase in health disparity.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results confirm that community-based interventions may be reducing absolute health inequalities of deprived and disadvantaged populations, but their potential so far is not fully realized. For the future, greater attention should be paid to inequalities between sub-groups within communities when analyzing changes in health inequality over time.

Exploring the equity impact of mobile health-based human immunodeficiency virus interventions: A systematic review of reviews and evidence synthesis

Objective

While mobile health-based human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) interventions are often designed to promote health equity, systematic differences in the use of and access to mobile technologies may counteract that and widen treatment gaps. This systematic review applies an equity lens to investigate whether existing research provides adequate evidence on the ethical implications of mHealth technologies in HIV treatment and prevention.

Methods

This study included a two-stage methodology, consisting of (a) a systematic review of systematic reviews and (b) an evidence synthesis of primary studies. For the review of reviews we searched eight electronic databases, eight electronic journals and Google Scholar. We also screened reference lists and consulted authors of included studies. Primary studies were extracted from eligible reviews. We based our data extraction and analysis on the Place of residence, Race, Occupation, Gender/Sex, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status, Social capital and other disadvantage related characteristics (PROGRESS-Plus) framework and the use of harvest plots, focusing on the socio-demographic distribution of mHealth effects.

Results

A total of 8786 citations resulted in 19 eligible reviews and 39 eligible primary studies. Existing reviews did not provide any analyses of the equity impacts of mobile health-based HIV initiatives. Information availability was higher in primary studies, predominantly suggesting no social gradient of mobile health-based HIV interventions. Overall, evidence remains weak and not sufficient to allow for confident equity statements.

Conclusions

Despite the negative force of socio-demographic inequities and the emerging nature of mobile health technologies, evidence on the equity implications of mobile health interventions for HIV care remains scarce. Not knowing how the effects of mobile health technologies differ across population subgroups inevitably limits our capacities to equitably adopt, adjust and integrate mobile health interventions towards reaching those disproportionally affected by the epidemic.

Comparative Distributional Impact of Routine Immunization and Supplementary Immunization Activities in Delivery of Measles Vaccine in Low- and Middle-Income Countries

OBJECTIVES

In many countries, measles disproportionately affects poorer households. To achieve equitable delivery, national immunization programs can use 2 main delivery platforms: routine immunization and supplementary immunization activities (SIAs). The objective of this article is to use data concerning measles vaccination coverage delivered via routine and SIA strategies to make inferences about the associated equity impact.

METHODS

We relied on Demographic and Health Survey and Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys multi-country survey data to conduct a comparative analysis of routine and SIA measles vaccination status of children by wealth quintile. We estimated the value of the angle, θ, for the ratio of the difference between coverage levels of adjacent wealth quintiles by using the arc-tangent formula. For each country/year observation, we averaged the θ estimates into one summary measurement, defined as the "equity impact number."

RESULTS

Across 20 countries, the equity impact number summarized across wealth quintiles was greater (and hence less equitable) for routine delivery than for SIAs in the survey rounds (years) during, before, and after an SIA about 65% of the time. The equity impact numbers for routine measles vaccination averaged across wealth quintiles were usually greater than for SIA measles vaccination across country-year observations.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis examined how different measles vaccine delivery platforms can affect equity. It can serve to elucidate the impact of immunization and public health programs in terms of comparing horizontal to vertical delivery efforts and in reducing health inequalities in global and country-level decision-making.

Building the Evidence Base to Inform Planned Intervention Adaptations by Practitioners Serving Health Disparity Populations

Many evidence-based interventions (EBIs) have been developed to prevent or treat major health conditions. However, many EBIs have exhibited limited adoption, reach, and sustainability when implemented in diverse community settings. This limitation is especially pronounced in low-resource settings that serve health disparity populations. Often, practitioners identify problems with existing EBIs originally developed and tested with populations different from their target population and introduce needed adaptations to make the intervention more suitable. Although some EBIs have been extensively adapted for diverse populations and evaluated, most local adaptations to improve fit for health disparity populations are not well documented or evaluated. As a result, empirical evidence is often lacking regarding the potential effectiveness of specific adaptations practitioners may be considering. We advocate an expansion in the emphasis of adaptation research from researcher-led interventions to research that informs practitioner-led adaptations. By presenting a research vision and strategies needed to build this area of science, we aim to inform research that facilitates successful adaptation and equitable implementation and delivery of EBIs that reduce health disparities.

What impact do chronic disease self-management support interventions have on health inequity gaps related to socioeconomic status: a systematic review

Background

The social gradient in chronic disease (CD) is well-documented, and the ability to effectively self-manage is crucial to reducing morbidity and mortality from CD. This systematic review aimed to assess the moderating effect of socioeconomic status on self-management support (SMS) interventions in relation to participation, retention and post-intervention outcomes.

Methods

Six databases were searched for studies of any design published until December 2018. Eligible studies reported on outcomes from SMS interventions for adults with chronic disease, where socioeconomic status was recorded and a between-groups comparison on SES was made. Possible outcomes were participation rates, retention rates and clinical or behavioural post-intervention results.

Results

Nineteen studies were retrieved, including five studies on participation, five on attrition and nine studies reporting on outcomes following SMS intervention. All participation studies reported reduced engagement in low SES cohorts. Studies assessing retention and post-intervention outcomes had variable results, related to the diversity of interventions. A reduction in health disparity was seen in longer interventions that were individually tailored. Most studies did not provide a theoretical justification for the intervention being investigated, although four studies referred to Bandura’s concept of self-efficacy.

Conclusions

The limited research suggests that socioeconomic status does moderate the efficacy of SMS interventions, such that without careful tailoring and direct targeting of barriers to self-management, SMS may exacerbate the social gradient in chronic disease outcomes. Screening for patient disadvantage or workload, rather than simply recording SES, may increase the chances of tailored interventions being directed to those most likely to benefit from them. Future interventions for low SES populations should consider focussing more on treatment burden and patient capacity.

Trial registration

PROSPERO registration CRD42019124760. Registration date 17/4/19.

Which public health interventions are effective in reducing morbidity, mortality and health inequalities from infectious diseases amongst children in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs): protocol for an umbrella review

INTRODUCTION

Despite significant progress in the last few decades, infectious diseases remain a significant threat to children's health in low-income and middle-income countries. Effective means of prevention and control for these diseases exist, making any differences in the burden of these diseases between population groups or countries inequitable. Yet, gaps remain in our knowledge of the effect these public health interventions have on health inequalities in children, especially in low-income and middle-income countries. This umbrella review aims to address some of these gaps by exploring which public health interventions are effective in reducing morbidity, mortality and health inequalities from infectious diseases among children in low-income and middle-income countries.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

An umbrella review will be conducted to identify systematic reviews or evidence synthesis of public health interventions that reduce morbidity, mortality and/or health inequalities due to infectious diseases among children (aged under 5 years) in low-income and middle-income countries. The interventions of interest are public health interventions targeting infectious diseases or associated risk factors in children. We will search for reviews reporting health and health inequalities outcomes in and between populations. The literature search will be undertaken using the Cochrane Library, Medline, EMBASE, the CAB Global Health database, Health Evidence, the Campbell Collaboration Library of Systematic Reviews, International Initiative for Impact Evaluation Systematic review repository, Scopus, the Social Sciences Citation Index and PROSPERO. Additionally, a manual search will be performed in Google Scholar and three international organisations websites (UNICEF Office of Research-Innocenti, UNICEF, WHO) to capture grey literature. Data from the records meeting our inclusion/exclusion criteria will be collated using a narrative synthesis approach.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This review will exclusively work with anonymous group-level information available from published reviews. No ethical approval was required.The results of the review will be submitted for publication in academic journals and presented at international public health conferences. Additionally, key findings will be summarised for dissemination to a wider policy and general public audience as part of the Centre for Global Health Inequalities Research's policy work.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019141673.

New insulin delivery devices and glycemic outcomes in young patients with type 1 diabetes: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Optimal type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1D) care requires lifelong appropriate insulin treatment, which can be provided either by multiple daily injections (MDI) of insulin or by continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII). An increasing number of trials and previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMA) have compared both CSII and MDI but have provided limited information on equity and fairness regarding access to, and the effect of, those insulin devices. This study protocol proposes a clear and transparent methodology for conducting a SRMA of the literature (1) to assess the effect of CSII versus MDI on glycemic and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) among young patients with T1D and (2) to identify health inequalities in the use of CSII.

METHODS

This protocol was developed based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P), the PRISMA-E (PRISMA-Equity 2012 Guidelines), and the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook. We will include randomized clinical trials and non-randomized studies published between January 2000 and June 2019 to assess the effectiveness of CSII versus MDI on glycemic and PROs in young patients with T1D. To assess health inequality among those who received CSII, we will use the PROGRESS framework. To gather relevant studies, a search will be conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database. We will select studies that compared glycemic outcomes (the glycosylated hemoglobin values, severe hypoglycemia episodes, diabetic ketoacidosis events, and/or time spent in range or in hyper-hypoglycemia), and health-related quality of life, as a PRO, between therapies. Screening and selection of studies will be conducted independently by two researchers. Subgroup analyses will be performed according to age group, length of follow-up, and the use of adjunctive technological therapies that might influence glycemic outcomes.

DISCUSSION

Studies of the average effects of CSII versus MDI may have not assessed their impact on health equity, as some intended populations have been excluded. Therefore, this study will address health equity issues when assessing effects of CSII. The results will be published in a peer-review journal. Ethics approval will not be needed.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42018116474.

Consideration of sex and gender in Cochrane reviews of interventions for preventing healthcare-associated infections: a methodology study

BACKGROUND

Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) are common and increase morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs. Their control continues to be an unresolved issue worldwide. HAIs epidemiology shows sex/gender differences. Thus the lack of consideration of sex/gender in Cochrane reviews will limit their applicability and capacity to support informed decisions. This study aims to describe the extent to which Cochrane reviews of interventions for preventing HAIs consider sex and gender.

METHODS

Methodology study appraising Cochrane reviews of interventions to prevent HAIs.

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1995 (launch of the journal) to 31 December 2016. Two authors independently extracted data with EPPI-Reviewer 4 software, and independently appraised the sex/gender content of the reviews with the Sex and Gender Appraisal Tool for Systematic Reviews (SGAT-SR).

RESULTS

This study included 113 reviews assessing the effects of interventions for preventing HAIs. 100 reviews (88%) used at least one sex or gender-related term. The terminology used was heterogeneous, being "sex" the term used in more reviews (51%). No review defined neither sex nor gender. Thus we could not assess the definitions provided. Consideration of sex and gender was practically absent in the included reviews; in fact, no review met all the applicable items of the SGAT-SR, and 51 reviews (50%) fulfilled no item. No review provided a complete description of the sex and the gender of the samples of the included studies. Only ten reviews (10%) planned to perform sex- and gender-based analysis and only three (3%) could complete the analysis. The method chosen was always the subgroup analysis based on sex (one review) or gender (two reviews). Three reviews (3%) considered sex or gender-related findings in the conclusions.

CONCLUSION

Consideration of sex and gender in Cochrane reviews of interventions for preventing HAIs was practically absent. This lack of attention to sex and gender reduces the quality of Cochrane reviews, and their applicability for all people: women and men, boys and girls, and people of diverse gender identities. Cochrane should attempt to address the shortfalls detected.

Understanding variations in catastrophic health expenditure, its underlying determinants and impoverishment in Sub-Saharan African countries: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

To assess the financial burden due to out of pocket (OOP) payments, two mutually exclusive approaches have been used: catastrophic health expenditure (CHE) and impoverishment. Sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries primarily rely on OOP and are thus challenged with providing financial protection to the populations. To understand the variations in CHE and impoverishment in SSA, and the underlying determinants of CHE, a scoping review of the existing evidence was conducted.

METHODS

This review is guided by Arksey and O'Malley scoping review framework. A search was conducted in several databases including PubMed, EBSCO (EconLit, PsychoInfo, CINAHL), Web of Science, Jstor and virtual libraries of the World Health Organizations (WHO) and the World Bank. The primary outcome of interest was catastrophic health expenditure/impoverishment, while the secondary outcome was the associated risk factors.

RESULTS

Thirty-four (34) studies that met the inclusion criteria were fully assessed. CHE was higher amongst West African countries and amongst patients receiving treatment for HIV/ART, TB, malaria and chronic illnesses. Risk factors associated with CHE included household economic status, type of health provider, socio-demographic characteristics of household members, type of illness, social insurance schemes, geographical location and household size/composition. The proportion of households that are impoverished has increased over time across countries and also within the countries.

CONCLUSION

This review demonstrated that CHE/impoverishment is pervasive in SSA, and the magnitude varies across and within countries and over time. Socio-economic factors are seen to drive CHE with the poor being the most affected, and they vary across countries. This calls for intensifying health policies and financing structures in SSA, to provide equitable access to all populations especially the most poor and vulnerable. There is a need to innovate and draw lessons from the 'informal' social networks/schemes as they are reported to be more effective in cushioning the financial burden.

NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme in England: formative evaluation of the programme in early phase implementation

OBJECTIVES

Evaluation of the demonstrator phase and first wave roll-out of the National Health Service (NHS) Diabetes Prevention Programme (DPP) in England. To examine: (1) intervention design, provision and fidelity assessment procedures; (2) risk assessment and recruitment pathways and (3) data collection for monitoring and evaluation. To provide recommendations informing decision makers on programme quality, improvements and future evaluation.

DESIGN

We reviewed programme documents, mapping against the NHS DPP specification and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) public health guideline: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) prevention in people at high risk (PH38), conducted qualitative research using individual interviews and focus group discussions with stakeholders and examined recruitment, fidelity and data collection procedures.

SETTING

Seven NHS DPP demonstrator sites and, subsequently, 27 first wave areas across England.

INTERVENTIONS

Intensive behavioural intervention with weight loss, diet and physical activity goals. The national programme specifies at least 13 sessions over 9 months, delivered face to face to groups of 15-20 adults with non-diabetic hyperglycaemia, mainly recruited from primary care and NHS Health Checks.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants for qualitative research were purposively sampled to provide a spread of stakeholder experience. Documents for review were provided via the NHS DPP Management Group.

FINDINGS

The NHS DPP specification reflected current evidence with a clear framework for service provision. Providers, with national capacity to deliver, supplied intervention plans compliant with this framework. Stakeholders highlighted limitations in fidelity assessment and recruitment and retention challenges, especially in reach and equity, that could adversely impact on implementation. Risk assessment for first wave eligibility differed from NICE guidance.

CONCLUSIONS

The NHS DPP provides an evidence-based behavioural intervention for prevention of T2D in adults at high risk, with capacity to deliver nationally. Framework specification allows for balance between consistency and contextual variation in intervention delivery, with session details devolved to providers. Limitations in fidelity assurance, data collection procedures and recruitment issues could adversely impact on intervention effectiveness and restrict evaluation.

Comprehensive review of the evidence regarding the effectiveness of community-based primary health care in improving maternal, neonatal and child health: 5. equity effects for neonates and children

BACKGROUND

The degree to which investments in health programs improve the health of the most disadvantaged segments of the population-where utilization of health services and health status is often the worst-is a growing concern throughout the world. Therefore, questions about the degree to which community-based primary health care (CBPHC) can or actually does improve utilization of health services and the health status of the most disadvantaged children in a population is an important one.

METHODS

Using a database containing information about the assessment of 548 interventions, projects or programs (referred to collectively as projects) that used CBPHC to improve child health, we extracted evidence related to equity from a sub-set of 42 projects, identified through a multi-step process, that included an equity analysis. We organized our findings conceptually around a logical framework matrix.

RESULTS

Our analysis indicates that these CBPHC projects, all of which implemented child health interventions, achieved equitable effects. The vast majority (87%) of the 82 equity measurements carried out and reported for these 42 projects demonstrated "pro-equitable" or "equitable" effects, meaning that the project's equity indicator(s) improved to the same degree or more in the disadvantaged segments of the project population as in the more advantaged segments. Most (78%) of the all the measured equity effects were "pro-equitable," meaning that the equity criterion improved more in the most disadvantaged segment of the project population than in the other segments of the population.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the observation that CBPHC projects commonly provide services that are readily accessible to the entire project population and that even often reach down to all households, such projects are inherently likely to be more equitable than projects that strengthen services only at facilities, where utilization diminishes greatly with one's distance away. The decentralization of services and attention to and tracking of metrics across all phases of project implementation with attention to the underserved, as can be done in CBPHC projects, are important for reducing inequities in countries with a high burden of child mortality. Strengthening CBPHC is a necessary strategy for reducing inequities in child health and for achieving universal coverage of essential services for children.

GRADE equity guidelines 3: considering health equity in GRADE guideline development: rating the certainty of synthesized evidence

Objectives

The aim of this paper is to describe a conceptual framework for how to consider health equity in the Grading Recommendations Assessment and Development Evidence (GRADE) guideline development process.

Study Design and Setting

Consensus-based guidance developed by the GRADE working group members and other methodologists.

Results

We developed consensus-based guidance to help address health equity when rating the certainty of synthesized evidence (i.e., quality of evidence). When health inequity is determined to be a concern by stakeholders, we propose five methods for explicitly assessing health equity: (1) include health equity as an outcome; (2) consider patient-important outcomes relevant to health equity; (3) assess differences in the relative effect size of the treatment; (4) assess differences in baseline risk and the differing impacts on absolute effects; and (5) assess indirectness of evidence to disadvantaged populations and/or settings.

Conclusion

The most important priority for research on health inequity and guidelines is to identify and document examples where health equity has been considered explicitly in guidelines. Although there is a weak scientific evidence base for assessing health equity, this should not discourage the explicit consideration of how guidelines and recommendations affect the most vulnerable members of society.

Consideration of health inequalities in systematic reviews: a mapping review of guidance

BACKGROUND

Given that we know that interventions shown to be effective in improving the health of a population may actually widen the health inequalities gap while others reduce it, it is imperative that all systematic reviewers consider how the findings of their reviews may impact (reduce or increase) on the health inequality gap. This study reviewed existing guidance on incorporating considerations of health inequalities in systematic reviews in order to examine the extent to which they can help reviewers to incorporate such issues.

METHODS

A mapping review was undertaken to identify guidance documents that purported to inform reviewers on whether and how to incorporate considerations of health inequalities. Searches were undertaken in Medline, CINAHL and The Cochrane Library Methodology Register. Review guidance manuals prepared by international organisations engaged in undertaking systematic reviews, and their associated websites were scanned. Studies were included if they provided an overview or discussed the development and testing of guidance for dealing with the incorporation of considerations of health inequalities in evidence synthesis. Results are summarised in narrative and tabular forms.

RESULTS

Twenty guidance documents published between 2009 and 2016 were included. Guidance has been produced to inform considerations of health inequalities at different stages of the systematic review process. The Campbell and Cochrane Equity Group have been instrumental in developing and promoting such guidance. Definitions of health inequalities and guidance differed across the included studies. All but one guidance document were transparent in their method of production. Formal methods of evaluation were reported for six guidance documents. Most of the guidance was operationalised in the form of examples taken from published systematic reviews. The number of guidance items to operationalise ranges from 3 up to 26 with a considerable overlap noted.

CONCLUSIONS

Adhering to the guidance will require more work for the reviewers. It requires a deeper understanding of how reviewers can operationalise the guidance taking into consideration the barriers and facilitators involved. This has implications not only for understanding the usefulness and burden of the guidance but also for the uptake of guidance and its ultimate goal of improving health inequalities considerations in systematic reviews.

Protocol for the development of a CONSORT-equity guideline to improve reporting of health equity in randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Health equity concerns the absence of avoidable and unfair differences in health. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) can provide evidence about the impact of an intervention on health equity for specific disadvantaged populations or in general populations; this is important for equity-focused decision-making. Previous work has identified a lack of adequate reporting guidelines for assessing health equity in RCTs. The objective of this study is to develop guidelines to improve the reporting of health equity considerations in RCTs, as an extension of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT).

METHODS/DESIGN

A six-phase study using integrated knowledge translation governed by a study executive and advisory board will assemble empirical evidence to inform the CONSORT-equity extension. To create the guideline, the following steps are proposed: (1) develop a conceptual framework for identifying "equity-relevant trials," (2) assess empirical evidence regarding reporting of equity-relevant trials, (3) consult with global methods and content experts on how to improve reporting of health equity in RCTs, (4) collect broad feedback and prioritize items needed to improve reporting of health equity in RCTs, (5) establish consensus on the CONSORT-equity extension: the guideline for equity-relevant trials, and (6) broadly disseminate and implement the CONSORT-equity extension.

DISCUSSION

This work will be relevant to a broad range of RCTs addressing questions of effectiveness for strategies to improve practice and policy in the areas of social determinants of health, clinical care, health systems, public health, and international development, where health and/or access to health care is a primary outcome. The outcomes include a reporting guideline (CONSORT-equity extension) for equity-relevant RCTs and a knowledge translation strategy to broadly encourage its uptake and use by journal editors, authors, and funding agencies.

Extending the PRISMA statement to equity-focused systematic reviews (PRISMA-E 2012): explanation and elaboration

BACKGROUND

The promotion of health equity, the absence of avoidable and unfair differences in health outcomes, is a global imperative. Systematic reviews are an important source of evidence for health decision-makers, but have been found to lack assessments of the intervention effects on health equity. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) is a 27 item checklist intended to improve transparency and reporting of systematic reviews. We developed an equity extension for PRISMA (PRISMA-E 2012) to help systematic reviewers identify, extract, and synthesise evidence on equity in systematic reviews.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

In this explanation and elaboration paper we provide the rationale for each extension item. These items are additions or modifications to the existing PRISMA Statement items, in order to incorporate a focus on equity. An example of good reporting is provided for each item as well as the original PRISMA item.

CONCLUSIONS

This explanation and elaboration document is intended to accompany the PRISMA-E 2012 Statement and the PRISMA Statement to improve understanding of the reporting guideline for users. The PRISMA-E 2012 reporting guideline is intended to improve transparency and completeness of reporting of equity-focused systematic reviews. Improved reporting can lead to better judgement of applicability by policy makers which may result in more appropriate policies and programs and may contribute to reductions in health inequities. To encourage wide dissemination of this article it is accessible on the International Journal for Equity in Health, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, and Journal of Development Effectiveness web sites.

Are interventions to promote healthy eating equally effective for all? Systematic review of socioeconomic inequalities in impact

BACKGROUND

Interventions to promote healthy eating make a potentially powerful contribution to the primary prevention of non communicable diseases. It is not known whether healthy eating interventions are equally effective among all sections of the population, nor whether they narrow or widen the health gap between rich and poor. We undertook a systematic review of interventions to promote healthy eating to identify whether impacts differ by socioeconomic position (SEP).

METHODS

We searched five bibliographic databases using a pre-piloted search strategy. Retrieved articles were screened independently by two reviewers. Healthier diets were defined as the reduced intake of salt, sugar, trans-fats, saturated fat, total fat, or total calories, or increased consumption of fruit, vegetables and wholegrain. Studies were only included if quantitative results were presented by a measure of SEP. Extracted data were categorised with a modified version of the "4Ps" marketing mix, expanded to 6 "Ps": "Price, Place, Product, Prescriptive, Promotion, and Person".

RESULTS

Our search identified 31,887 articles. Following screening, 36 studies were included: 18 "Price" interventions, 6 "Place" interventions, 1 "Product" intervention, zero "Prescriptive" interventions, 4 "Promotion" interventions, and 18 "Person" interventions. "Price" interventions were most effective in groups with lower SEP, and may therefore appear likely to reduce inequalities. All interventions that combined taxes and subsidies consistently decreased inequalities. Conversely, interventions categorised as "Person" had a greater impact with increasing SEP, and may therefore appear likely to reduce inequalities. All four dietary counselling interventions appear likely to widen inequalities. We did not find any "Prescriptive" interventions and only one "Product" intervention that presented differential results and had no impact by SEP. More "Place" interventions were identified and none of these interventions were judged as likely to widen inequalities.

CONCLUSIONS

Interventions categorised by a "6 Ps" framework show differential effects on healthy eating outcomes by SEP. "Upstream" interventions categorised as "Price" appeared to decrease inequalities, and "downstream" "Person" interventions, especially dietary counselling seemed to increase inequalities. However the vast majority of studies identified did not explore differential effects by SEP. Interventions aimed at improving population health should be routinely evaluated for differential socioeconomic impact.

Consequences of 9/11 and the war on terror on children's and young adult's mental health: a systematic review of the past 10 years

This mixed method systematic review appraises the individual, familial and systemic effect of 9/11 and the war on terror for majority and minority children and youth in North America. The results highlight the broad social consequences of the socio-political transformations associated with the terror context, which cannot be understood only through a trauma focus analysis. The social stereotypes transformed youth experiences of belonging and exclusion. The difference between the consequences for majority and minority youth suggests the need for a broader appraisal of this societal context to support the development of prevention and intervention intersectorial programs.

Development and evaluation of 'briefing notes' as a novel knowledge translation tool to aid the implementation of sex/gender analysis in systematic reviews: a pilot study

Background

There is increasing recognition of sex/gender differences in health and the importance of identifying differential effects of interventions for men and women. Yet, to whom the research evidence does or does not apply, with regard to sex/gender, is often insufficiently answered. This is also true for systematic reviews which synthesize results of primary studies. A lack of analysis and reporting of evidence on sex/gender raises concerns about the applicability of systematic reviews. To bridge this gap, this pilot study aimed to translate knowledge about sex/gender analysis (SGA) into a user-friendly ‘briefing note’ format and evaluate its potential in aiding the implementation of SGA in systematic reviews.

Methods

Our Sex/Gender Methods Group used an interactive process to translate knowledge about sex/gender into briefing notes, a concise communication tool used by policy and decision makers. The briefing notes were developed in collaboration with three Cochrane Collaboration review groups (HIV/AIDS, Hypertension, and Musculoskeletal) who were also the target knowledge users of the briefing notes. Briefing note development was informed by existing systematic review checklists, literature on sex/gender, in-person and virtual meetings, and consultation with topic experts. Finally, we held a workshop for potential users to evaluate the notes.

Results

Each briefing note provides tailored guidance on considering sex/gender to reviewers who are planning or conducting systematic reviews and includes the rationale for considering sex/gender, with examples specific to each review group’s focus. Review authors found that the briefing notes provided welcome guidance on implementing SGA that was clear and concise, but also identified conceptual and implementation challenges.

Conclusions

Sex/gender briefing notes are a promising knowledge translation tool. By encouraging sex/gender analysis and equity considerations in systematic reviews, the briefing notes can assist systematic reviewers in ensuring the applicability of research evidence, with the goal of improved health outcomes for diverse populations.

The use of a collaborative structured methodology for the development of a multifaceted intervention programme for the management of asthma (the MIA project), tailored to the needs of children and families of South Asian origin: a community-based, participatory study

Background

Asthma is one of the most common chronic childhood illnesses in the UK. South Asian children are more likely to suffer from their asthma and be admitted to hospital. While this inequality needs to be addressed, standard behaviour-change interventions are known to be less successful in minority ethnic groups. Evidence suggests a need to enhance services provided to ethnic minority communities by developing culturally sensitive tailored interventions.

Objectives

The Management and Interventions for Asthma (MIA) project aimed to test an iterative multiphase participatory approach to intervention development underpinned by the socioecological model of health, producing an intervention-planning framework and enhancing an evidence-based understanding of asthma management in South Asian and White British children.

Design

Interviews and focus groups facilitated by community facilitators (CFs) were used to explore knowledge and perceptions of asthma among South Asian communities, children, families and healthcare professionals (HCPs). A smaller comparison group of White British families was recruited to identify aspects of asthma management that could be addressed either by generic interventions or by a tailored approach. Collaborative workshops were held to develop an intervention planning framework and to prioritise an aspect of asthma management that would be used as an exemplar for the development of the tailored, multifaceted asthma intervention programme.

Setting

The community study was based in a largely urban environment in Leicester, UK.

Participants

Participants were recruited directly from the South Asian (Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi) and White British communities, and through the NHS. Children were aged between 4 and 12 years, with a range of asthma severity.

Intervention development

The study had four phases. Phase 1 consisted of an evidence review of barriers and facilitators to asthma management in South Asian children. Phase 2 explored lay understandings of childhood asthma and its management among South Asian community members (n = 63). Phase 3 explored perceptions and experiences of asthma management among South Asian (n = 82) and White British families (n = 31) and HCP perspectives (n = 37). Using a modified intervention mapping approach incorporating psychological theory, phase 4 developed an intervention planning framework addressing the whole asthma pathway leading to the development of an exemplar multifaceted, integrated intervention programme called ‘ACT [Awareness, Context (cultural and organisational) and Training] on Asthma’.

Results

Data on the social patterning of perceptions of asthma and a lack of alignment between the organisation of health services, and the priorities and competencies of British South Asian communities and families were produced. Eleven key problem areas along the asthma pathway were identified. A four-arm multifaceted tailored programme, ‘ACT on Asthma’, was developed, focusing on the theme ‘getting a diagnosis’. This theme was chosen following prioritisation by families during the collaborative workshops, demonstrating the participatory, iterative, phased approach used for the intervention design.

Conclusions

The MIA study demonstrated barriers to optimal asthma management in children at the family, provider and healthcare system levels and across the whole asthma pathway. Interventions need to address each of these levels to be effective. Minority ethnic communities can be successfully engaged in collaborative intervention development with a community-focused and culturally sensitive methodology.

Future work

Further research is required to (1) assess the feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed ‘ACT on Asthma’ programme, (2) develop methods to increase active participation of children in research and service development, (3) develop and test strategies to enhance public understanding of asthma in South Asian communities and (4) identify effective means of engaging the wider family in optimising asthma management.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

A systematic review of explanatory factors of barriers and facilitators to improving asthma management in South Asian children

BACKGROUND

South Asian children with asthma are less likely to receive prescriptions and more likely to suffer uncontrolled symptoms and acute asthma admissions compared with White British children. Understanding barriers are therefore vital in addressing health inequalities. We undertook a systematic review identifying explanatory factors for barriers and facilitators to asthma management in South Asian children. South Asians were defined as individuals of Indian, Pakistani or Bangladeshi descent.

METHODS

Data Sources - Medline, HMIC, EMBASE, ASSIA, Web of Science, BNI, CINAHL, PsycINFO, OpenSIGLE, CRD, Scopus, NHS Evidence, Cochrane Library, Campbell Collaboration, RCPCH, ATS, ERS, Asthma UK, Google Scholar & Asthma Guidelines (BTS, GINA, ATS, Monash, NAEPP, Singapore & New Zealand) to August 2013.Inclusion Criteria - Qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods research with primary focus on identifying explanations for barriers and/or facilitators to asthma management in South Asian children aged 0-18 years with diagnosed/suspected asthma and/or carers and/or healthcare professionals.Data Extraction - Three authors independently reviewed, selected & extracted eligible articles with disagreements resolved by research team discussion.

RESULTS

15 studies encompassing 25,755 children, 18,483 parents/carers and 239 healthcare professionals were included. Barriers and explanatory factors identified were:1. Lack of asthma knowledge in families and healthcare professionals.2. Under-use of preventer medications.3. Non-acceptance/denial of asthma.4. Over-reliance on Emergency Department management.5. Communication problems.6. Non-adherence to medication.7. Use of complementary therapies.Little facilitators regarding asthma management were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Several key issues were identified as likely to be ethnic-specific to South Asian families, rather than a reflection of minority status: impact of parental and professional knowledge and beliefs, health service utilisation pattern explanations and the impact of prejudice and stigmatisation. Other explanations such as language barriers are not strictly ethnic specific but instead reflect a minority position.Further research is required to identify why barriers exist, the mechanisms by which they impact on asthma management and how they can be overcome. Furthermore, understanding the difference between barriers and explanations that are ethnic-specific and those that are related to being a minority will enable the application of generic system-wide interventions where ethnicity is not the issue and ethnically-tailored interventions where needed.

The challenges of including sex/gender analysis in systematic reviews: a qualitative survey

BACKGROUND

Systematic review methodology includes the rigorous collection, selection, and evaluation of data in order to synthesize the best available evidence for health practice, health technology assessments, and health policy. Despite evidence that sex and gender matter to health outcomes, data and analysis related to sex and gender are frequently absent in systematic reviews, raising concerns about the quality and applicability of reviews. Few studies have focused on challenges to implementing sex/gender analysis within systematic reviews.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary group of systematic reviewers, methodologists, biomedical and social science researchers, health practitioners, and other health sector professionals completed an open-ended survey prior to a two-day workshop focused on sex/gender, equity, and bias in systematic reviews. Respondents were asked to identify challenging or 'thorny' issues associated with integrating sex and gender in systematic reviews and indicate how they address these in their work. Data were analysed using interpretive description. A summary of the findings was presented and discussed with workshop participants.

RESULTS

Respondents identified conceptual challenges, such as defining sex and gender, methodological challenges in measuring and analysing sex and gender, challenges related to availability of data and data quality, and practical and policy challenges. No respondents discussed how they addressed these challenges, but all proposed ways to address sex/gender analysis in the future.

CONCLUSIONS

Respondents identified a wide range of interrelated challenges to implementing sex/gender considerations within systematic reviews. To our knowledge, this paper is the first to identify these challenges from the perspectives of those conducting and using systematic reviews. A framework and methods to integrate sex/gender analysis in systematic reviews are in the early stages of development. A number of priority items and collaborative initiatives to guide systematic reviewers in sex/gender analysis are provided, based on the survey results and subsequent workshop discussions. An emerging 'community of practice' is committed to enhancing the quality and applicability of systematic reviews by integrating considerations of sex/gender into the review process, with the goals of improving health outcomes and ensuring health equity for all persons.

Inequalities in noncommunicable disease mortality in the ten largest Japanese cities

The burden of noncommunicable diseases and social inequalities in health among urban populations is becoming a common problem around the world. This phenomenon is further compounded by population aging. Japan faces the task of maintaining its high level of population health while dealing with these challenges. This study focused on the ten largest cities in Japan and, using publicly available administrative data, analyzed standardized mortality ratios to examine inequalities in relative mortality levels due to major noncommunicable disease at both city and subcity levels. On average, the ten major cities had excess mortality due to cancer and lower mortality due to heart disease and cerebrovascular disease compared to the country as a whole. Substantial inequalities in relative mortality were observed both between and within cities, especially for heart disease and cerebrovascular disease among men. Inequalities in relative mortality levels within cities appear to be increasing over time even while relative mortality levels are decreasing overall. The widely observed health inequalities signal the need for actions to ensure health equity while addressing the burden of noncommunicable diseases. Increasingly, more countries will have to deal with these challenges of inequity, urbanization, aging, and noncommunicable diseases. Local health governance informed by locally specific data on health determinants and outcomes is essential for developing contextualized interventions to improve health and health equity in major urban areas.

Testing the PRISMA-Equity 2012 reporting guideline: the perspectives of systematic review authors

Reporting guidelines can be used to encourage standardised and comprehensive reporting of health research. In light of the global commitment to health equity, we have previously developed and published a reporting guideline for equity-focused systematic reviews (PRISMA-E 2012). The objectives of this study were to explore the utility of the equity extension items included in PRISMA-E 2012 from a systematic review author perspective, including facilitators and barriers to its use. This will assist in designing dissemination and knowledge translation strategies. We conducted a survey of systematic review authors to expose them to the new items in PRISMA-E 2012, establish the extent to which they had historically addressed those items in their own reviews, and gather feedback on the usefulness of the new items. Data were analysed using Microsoft Excel 2008 and Stata (version 11.2 for Mac). Of 151 respondents completing the survey, 18.5% (95% CI: 12.7% to 25.7%) had not heard of the PRISMA statement before, although 83.4% (95% CI: 77.5% to 89.3%) indicated that they plan to use PRISMA-E 2012 in the future, depending on the focus of their review. Most (68.9%; 95% CI: 60.8% to 76.2%) thought that using PRISMA-E 2012 would lead them to conduct their reviews differently. Important facilitators to using PRISMA-E 2012 identified by respondents were journal endorsement and incorporation of the elements of the guideline into systematic review software. Barriers identified were lack of time, word limits and the availability of equity data in primary research. This study has been the first to ‘road-test’ the new PRISMA-E 2012 reporting guideline and the findings are encouraging. They confirm the acceptability and potential utility of the guideline to assist review authors in reporting on equity in their reviews. The uptake and impact of PRISMA-E 2012 over time on design, conduct and reporting of primary research and systematic reviews should continue to be examined.

What does it mean to be genomically literate?: National Human Genome Research Institute Meeting Report

Genomic discoveries will increasingly advance the science of medicine. Limited genomic literacy may adversely impact the public's understanding and use of the power of genetics and genomics in health care and public health. In November 2011, a meeting was held by the National Human Genome Research Institute to examine the challenge of achieving genomic literacy for the general public, from kindergarten to grade 12 to adult education. The role of the media in disseminating scientific messages and in perpetuating or reducing misconceptions was also discussed. Workshop participants agreed that genomic literacy will be achieved only through active engagement between genomics experts and the varied constituencies that comprise the public. This report summarizes the background, content, and outcomes from this meeting, including recommendations for a research agenda to inform decisions about how to advance genomic literacy in our society.

Health equity: evidence synthesis and knowledge translation methods

BACKGROUND

At the Rio Summit in 2011 on Social Determinants of Health, the global community recognized a pressing need to take action on reducing health inequities. This requires an improved evidence base on the effects of national and international policies on health inequities. Although systematic reviews are recognized as an important source for evidence-informed policy, they have been criticized for failing to assess effects on health equity.

METHODS

This article summarizes guidance on both conducting systematic reviews with a focus on health equity and on methods to translate their findings to different audiences. This guidance was developed based on a series of methodology meetings, previous guidance, a recently developed reporting guideline for equity-focused systematic reviews (PRISMA-Equity 2012) and a systematic review of methods to assess health equity in systematic reviews.

RESULTS

We make ten recommendations for conducting equity-focused systematic reviews; and five considerations for knowledge translation. Illustrative examples of equity-focused reviews are provided where these methods have been used.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of the recommendations in this article is one step toward monitoring the impact of national and international policies and programs on health equity, as recommended by the 2011 World Conference on Social Determinants of Health.

Systematic reviews need to consider applicability to disadvantaged populations: inter-rater agreement for a health equity plausibility algorithm

Background

Systematic reviews have been challenged to consider effects on disadvantaged groups. A priori specification of subgroup analyses is recommended to increase the credibility of these analyses. This study aimed to develop and assess inter-rater agreement for an algorithm for systematic review authors to predict whether differences in effect measures are likely for disadvantaged populations relative to advantaged populations (only relative effect measures were addressed).

Methods

A health equity plausibility algorithm was developed using clinimetric methods with three items based on literature review, key informant interviews and methodology studies. The three items dealt with the plausibility of differences in relative effects across sex or socioeconomic status (SES) due to: 1) patient characteristics; 2) intervention delivery (i.e., implementation); and 3) comparators. Thirty-five respondents (consisting of clinicians, methodologists and research users) assessed the likelihood of differences across sex and SES for ten systematic reviews with these questions. We assessed inter-rater reliability using Fleiss multi-rater kappa.

Results

The proportion agreement was 66% for patient characteristics (95% confidence interval: 61%-71%), 67% for intervention delivery (95% confidence interval: 62% to 72%) and 55% for the comparator (95% confidence interval: 50% to 60%). Inter-rater kappa, assessed with Fleiss kappa, ranged from 0 to 0.199, representing very low agreement beyond chance.

Conclusions

Users of systematic reviews rated that important differences in relative effects across sex and socioeconomic status were plausible for a range of individual and population-level interventions. However, there was very low inter-rater agreement for these assessments. There is an unmet need for discussion of plausibility of differential effects in systematic reviews. Increased consideration of external validity and applicability to different populations and settings is warranted in systematic reviews to meet this need.

Does consideration and assessment of effects on health equity affect the conclusions of systematic reviews? A methodology study

Introduction

Tackling health inequities both within and between countries remains high on the agenda of international organizations including the World Health Organization and local, regional and national governments. Systematic reviews can be a useful tool to assess effects on equity in health status because they include studies conducted in a variety of settings and populations. This study aims to describe the extent to which the impacts of health interventions on equity in health status are considered in systematic reviews, describe methods used, and assess the implications of their equity related findings for policy, practice and research.

Methods

We conducted a methodology study of equity assessment in systematic reviews. Two independent reviewers extracted information on the reporting and analysis of impacts of health interventions on equity in health status in a group of 300 systematic reviews collected from all systematic reviews indexed in one month of MEDLINE, using a pre-tested data collection form. Any differences in data extraction were resolved by discussion.

Results

Of the 300 systematic reviews, 224 assessed the effectiveness of interventions on health outcomes. Of these 224 reviews, 29 systematic reviews assessed effects on equity in health status using subgroup analysis or targeted analyses of vulnerable populations. Of these, seven conducted subgroup analyses related to health equity which were reported in insufficient detail to judge their credibility. Of these 29 reviews, 18 described implications for policy and practice based on assessment of effects on health equity.

Conclusion

The quality and completeness of reporting should be enhanced as a priority, because without this policymakers and practitioners will continue lack the evidence base they need to inform decision-making about health inequity. Furthermore, there is a need to develop methods to systematically consider impacts on equity in health status that is currently lacking in systematic reviews.

PRISMA-Equity 2012 extension: reporting guidelines for systematic reviews with a focus on health equity

Vivian Welch and colleagues present consensus-based guidelines for reporting equity-focused systematic reviews, the PRISMA-Equity extension.