Is health equity considered in systematic reviews of the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group?

What influences consumers' online medication purchase intentions and behavior? A scoping review

Objective: Consumers increasingly buy pharmaceuticals online. No scoping review has been carried out to summarize and synthesize the studies that have identified drivers of consumers' purchase intention and behavior from online pharmacies. Thus, we conducted a scoping review to explore the extent to which prior research has studied consumer purchase intentions and behavior related to online pharmacies, the drivers previously identified to explain consumers' online pharmacy purchase intentions and behavior, and how these antecedents differ between OTC and prescription medications. Then, we identified gaps in the published literature to form a comprehensive theory-based agenda for future research. Methods: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus to retrieve relevant studies published in English in peer-reviewed journals. The search strategy identified forty-eight eligible studies. Results: We identified twelve types of factors influencing purchase intentions and behaviors from online pharmacies: demographics, convenience, availability, price, evaluations of the purchase environment, information sources, internet usage, prior experience, perceived risk, health insurance, privacy, and product. Our analysis also revealed differences between OTC and prescription medications in drivers of purchase intentions and behaviors. Conclusion: While demographic factors tended to be the most often measured influences on intentions and behavior, their role was generally inconsistent, with many contradictory results. However, other factors (e.g., convenience, availability, lower prices, and favorable evaluations toward the purchase environment) more consistently enhanced online medication purchase intentions and behavior. An extensive agenda for future research is advanced.

Equity issues rarely addressed in the development of COVID-19 formal recommendations and good practice statements: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

To identify COVID-19 actionable statements (e.g., recommendations) focused on specific disadvantaged populations in the living map of COVID-19 recommendations (eCOVIDRecMap) and describe how health equity was assessed in the development of the formal recommendations.

METHODS

We employed the place of residence, race or ethnicity or culture, occupation, gender or sex, religion, education, socio-economic status, and social capital-Plus framework to identify statements focused on specific disadvantaged populations. We assessed health equity considerations in the evidence to decision frameworks (EtD) of formal recommendations for certainty of evidence and impact on health equity criteria according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations criteria.

RESULTS

We identified 16% (124/758) formal recommendations and 24% (186/819) good practice statements (GPS) that were focused on specific disadvantaged populations. Formal recommendations (40%, 50/124) and GPS (25%, 47/186) most frequently focused on children. Seventy-six percent (94/124) of the recommendations were accompanied with EtDs. Over half (55%, 52/94) of those considered indirectness of the evidence for disadvantaged populations. Considerations in impact on health equity criterion most frequently involved implementation of the recommendation for disadvantaged populations (17%, 16/94).

CONCLUSION

Equity issues were rarely explicitly considered in the development COVID-19 formal recommendations focused on specific disadvantaged populations. Guidance is needed to support the consideration of health equity in guideline development during health emergencies.

Assessment of health equity consideration in Cochrane systematic reviews and primary studies on urolithiasis

Background and Aims

Health injustice is defined as "unnecessary, preventable, unjustified and unfair health differences." One of the most important scientific sources on the prevention and management of urolithiasis are Cochrane reviews in this field. Given that the first step in eliminating health injustice is to identify the causes, the aim of the present study was to evaluate equity considerations in Cochrane reviews and the included primary studies on urinary stones.

Methods

Cochrane reviews on kidney stones and ureteral stones were searched through the Cochrane Library. The included clinical trials in each of the reviews published after 2000 were also collected. Two different researchers reviewed all the included Cochrane reviews and primary studies. The researchers reviewed each PROGRESS criteria independently (P: place of residence, R: race/ethnicity/culture, O: occupation, G: gender, R: religion, E: education, S: socioeconomic status, S: social capital and networks). The geographical location of the included studies was categorized as low-income, middle-income and high-income countries, based on the World Bank income criteria. Each PROGRESS dimension was reported for both the Cochrane reviews and the primary studies.

Results

In total, 12 Cochrane reviews and 140 primary studies were included in this study. None of the included Cochrane reviews had specifically mentioned the PROGRESS framework in the Method section whereas gender distribution and place of residence were reported in two and one reviews, respectively. In 134 primary studies at least one item of PROGRESS was reported. The most frequent item was gender distribution, followed by place of residence.

Conclusion

According to the results of this study, the authors of Cochrane systematic reviews on urolithiasis, and researchers who have conducted such trials, have rarely considered health equity dimensions when designing and performing their studies. Therefore, researchers worldwide should be motivated to study populations from low-income countries with low socioeconomic status in addition to different cultures, ethnicities, and so forth. Furthermore, RCT reporting guidelines such as CONSORT should include health equity dimensions and the editors and reviewers of scientific journals should encourage researchers to further emphasize on health equity in their studies.

Socioeconomic Status and Medication Use in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVE

Socioeconomic status (SES) influences disease outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. Differences in medication use may partly explain this association. A scoping review was used to identify research conducted on this topic and determine what knowledge gaps remain.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, and PsychInfo were searched from their inception until February 2022 for studies that assessed SES and medication use as an outcome variable. Data was extracted on the use of specific SES measures, medication use, and whether differences in SES variables were associated with differences in medication use.

RESULTS

We identified 2,103 studies, of which 81 were selected for inclusion. Included studies originated most frequently from the US (42%); the mean ± SD age of participants was 55.9 ± 6.8 years, and most were female (75%). Studies measured a median of 4 SES variables (interquartile range 3-6), with educational, area-level SES, and income being the most frequent measurements used. Patients' race and/or ethnicity were documented by 34 studies. Studies primarily assessed the likelihood of prescription of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or dispensation, medication adherence, or treatment delays. A majority of studies documented at least 1 SES measure associated with a difference in medication use.

CONCLUSION

There is some evidence that SES affects use of medications in patients with RA; however, multiple definitions of SES have been utilized, making comparisons between studies difficult. Prospective studies with consistently defined SES will be needed to determine whether differences in medication use accounts for the poorer outcomes experienced by patients of lower SES.

Do recommended interventions widen or narrow inequalities in musculoskeletal health? An equity-focussed systematic review of differential effectiveness

Background

It is unclear whether seven interventions recommended by Public Health England for preventing and managing common musculoskeletal conditions reduce or widen health inequalities in adults with musculoskeletal conditions.

Methods

We used citation searches of Web of Science (date of ‘parent publication’ for each intervention to April 2021) to identify original research articles reporting subgroup or moderator analyses of intervention effects by social stratifiers defined using the PROGRESS-Plus frameworks. Randomized controlled trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series, systematic reviews presenting subgroup/stratified analyses or meta-regressions, individual participant data meta-analyses and modelling studies were eligible. Two reviewers independently assessed the credibility of effect moderation claims using Instrument to assess the Credibility of Effect Moderation Analyses. A narrative approach to synthesis was used (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019140018).

Results

Of 1480 potentially relevant studies, seven eligible analyses of single trials and five meta-analyses were included. Among these, we found eight claims of potential differential effectiveness according to social characteristics, but none that were judged to have high credibility.

Conclusions

In the absence of highly credible evidence of differential effectiveness in different social groups, and given ongoing national implementation, equity concerns may be best served by investing in monitoring and action aimed at ensuring fair access to these interventions.

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.

[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. This is a German translation of the original paper published in English.

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.

Population characteristics as important contextual factors in rheumatological trials: an exploratory meta-epidemiological study from an OMERACT Working Group

OBJECTIVES

To explore whether trial population characteristics modify treatment responses across various interventions, comparators and rheumatic conditions.

METHODS

In this meta-epidemiological study, we included trials from systematic reviews available from the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group published up to 23 April 2019 in Cochrane Library with meta-analyses of five or more randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published from year 2000. From trial reports, we extracted data on 20 population characteristics. For characteristics with sufficient data (ie, available for ≥2/3 of the trials), we performed multilevel meta-epidemiological analyses.

RESULTS

We identified 19 eligible systematic reviews contributing 187 RCTs (212 comparisons). Only age and sex were explicitly reported in ≥2/3 of the trials. Using information about the country of the trials led to sufficient data for five further characteristics, that is, 7 out of 20 (35%) protocolised characteristics were analysed. The meta-regressions showed effect modification by economic status, place of residence, and, nearly, from healthcare system (explaining 4.8%, 0.9% and 1.5% of the between-trial variation, respectively). No effect modification was demonstrated from age, sex, patient education/health literacy or predominant religion.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates the scarce reporting of most population characteristics, hampering investigation of their impact with meta-research. Our sparse results suggest that place of residence (ie, continent of the trial), economic status (based on World Bank classifications) and healthcare system (based on WHO index for health system performance) may be important in explaining the variation in treatment response across trials. There is an urgent need for consistent reporting of important population characteristics in trials.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019127642.

Equity was rarely considered in Cochrane Eyes and Vision systematic reviews and primary studies on cataract

OBJECTIVE

We sought to understand the extent to which Cochrane Eyes and Vision systematic reviews of interventions for cataract, and primary studies, consider equity.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

This is a review of Cochrane Eyes and Vision systematic reviews (CSRs) on cataract published on the Cochrane Library (end of March 2019) (n = 23), and recently published primary studies included in those reviews (n = 62), using the PROGRESSPlus framework.

RESULTS

One CSR considered equity as a topic. Four (17%) CSRs included a low- and middle-income country (LMIC) author; one of them was a first author. The CSR with equity as a main topic restricted primary studies to those conducted in LMICs; otherwise none of the systematic reviews used PROGRESS factors as inclusion or exclusion criteria. None of the CSRs reported subgroup analyses by any PROGRESS factor, although these were planned in two. Two of the primary studies were led by an LMIC author; 42% involved LMIC authors; 37% were conducted in LMICs; 73% of studies reported on gender/sex of participants, but other PROGRESS factors were less frequently reported. Three studies reported subgroup analyses by sex; one reported subgroup analyses by race/ethnicity.

CONCLUSION

PROGRESS factors and equity are rarely considered in studies of interventions for cataract, and this is reflected in the associated Cochrane reviews.

Reporting of health equity considerations in cluster and individually randomized trials

Background

The randomized controlled trial (RCT) is considered the gold standard study design to inform decisions about the effectiveness of interventions. However, a common limitation is inadequate reporting of the applicability of the intervention and trial results for people who are “socially disadvantaged” and this can affect policy-makers’ decisions. We previously developed a framework for identifying health-equity-relevant trials, along with a reporting guideline for transparent reporting. In this study, we provide a descriptive assessment of health-equity considerations in 200 randomly sampled equity-relevant trials.

Methods

We developed a search strategy to identify health-equity-relevant trials published between 2013 and 2015. We randomly sorted the 4316 records identified by the search and screened studies until 100 individually randomized (RCTs) and 100 cluster randomized controlled trials (CRTs) were identified. We developed and pilot-tested a data extraction form based on our initial work, to inform the development of our reporting guideline for equity-relevant randomized trials.

Results

In total, 39 trials (20%) were conducted in a low- and middle-income country and 157 trials (79%) in a high-income country focused on socially disadvantaged populations (78% CRTs, 79% RCTs). Seventy-four trials (37%) reported a subgroup analysis across a population characteristic associated with disadvantage (25% CRT, 49% RCTs), with 19% of included studies reporting subgroup analyses across sex, 9% across race/ethnicity/culture, and 4% across socioeconomic status. No subgroup analyses were reported for place of residence, occupation, religion, education, or social capital. One hundred and forty-one trials (71%) discussed the applicability of their results to one or more socially disadvantaged populations (68% of CRT, 73% of RCT).

Discussion

In this set of trials, selected for their relevance to health equity, data that were disaggregated for socially disadvantaged populations were rarely reported. We found that even when the data are available, opportunities to analyze health-equity considerations are frequently missed. The recently published equity extension of the Consolidated Reporting Standards for Randomized Trials (CONSORT-Equity) may help improve delineation of hypotheses related to socially disadvantaged populations, and transparency and completeness of reporting of health-equity considerations in RCTs. This study can serve as a baseline assessment of the reporting of equity considerations.

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.

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.

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.

Examining the Supply of and Demand for Physiotherapy in Saskatchewan: The Relationship between Where Physiotherapists Work and Population Health Need

Purpose: This research examined the association between the distribution of physiotherapists in Saskatchewan relative to population health characteristics and self-reported physiotherapy use. Methods: Using a cross-sectional design, de-identified data were collected from the 2013 Saskatchewan College of Physical Therapy membership renewals (n=643), and Saskatchewan population health characteristics data were obtained from the 2009-2012 Canadian Community Health Surveys (CCHSs). Age- and sex-adjusted proportions of selected population health characteristics were calculated and stratified by health region and rural-urban location; both were determined, for physiotherapists and CCHS participants, using postal codes. The association between physiotherapy distribution and physiotherapy use was calculated, and geospatial mapping techniques were used to display physiotherapist distribution across the province relative to population health characteristics. Results: Across health regions, a positive correlation (r=0.655, p<0.029) was found between physiotherapist distribution and self-reported physiotherapy use. Mapping population health characteristics according to physiotherapist distribution demonstrated an imbalance between supply and distribution of physiotherapists and population health needs and demands. Conclusion: There is a discrepancy in Saskatchewan among the distribution of physiotherapists, self-reported physiotherapy use, and population health characteristics, especially in rural settings. These findings provide insight into which areas are in need of increased physiotherapy services.

Less educated and older patients have reduced access to biologic DMARDs even in a country with highly developed social welfare (Norway): results from Norwegian cohort study NOR-DMARD

OBJECTIVE

To explore whether age, gender or education influence the time until initiation of the first bDMARD in patients with RA.

METHODS

Data from the Norwegian Register of DMARDs collected between 2000 and 2012 were used. Only DMARD-naïve patients with RA starting their first conventional synthetic DMARD were included in the analyses. The start of the first bDMARD was the main outcome of interest. Cox regression analyses were used to explore the impact of education, age and gender on the start of a first bDMARD, adjusting for confounders, either at baseline or varying over time (time-varying model).

RESULTS

Of 1946 eligible patients [mean (s.d.) age: 55 (14) years, 68% females], 368 (19%) received a bDMARD during follow-up (mean 2.6 years). In the baseline prediction model, older age [Hazard Ratio (HR) 0.97, 95% CI: 0.96, 0.98], lower education [HR = 0.76 and 0.68 for low and intermediate education levels vs college/university education, respectively (P = 0.01)] and female gender [only in the period 2000-03, HR = 0.61 (95% CI: 0.41, 0.91)] were associated with a lower hazard ratio to start a bDMARD. The time-varying model provided overall consistent results, but the effect of education was only relevant for older patients (>57 years) and became more pronounced by the end of the decade.

CONCLUSIONS

Less educated and older patients have disadvantages with regard to access to costly treatments, even in a country with highly developed welfare like Norway. Females had lower access in the beginning of the 2000s, but access had improved by the end of the decade.

CONSIDERING EQUITY IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT: AN EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS OF AGENCY PRACTICES

Objectives: Equity is one of the founding principles in most healthcare systems. Financial constraints entail an increased risk of exacerbating inequities and a greater need for evidence-based decisions. It is, therefore, both important and timely to enquire how equity can be addressed in health technology assessment (HTA) practice. We aimed to explore related practices from a broad range of HTA agencies, identify exemplary approaches and common concerns, and offer insights for future considerations.

Methods: HTA agencies for which both methodological guides and HTA reports were publicly available were selected from an initial comprehensive pool. Information was extracted on issues ranging from a general commitment to fairness to specific measures targeting both methodological and process-related elements.

Results: Methodological documents and ninety-eight reports from nineteen agencies were analyzed. Our findings indicate that equity was not a standard consideration in HTA report production. The nature of specific approaches and the amount of resources invested into including an equity perspective varied considerably. Specific measures (e.g., appropriate information sources, analytical tools, and schemes) were mentioned by almost half of the agencies analyzed. Albeit sporadic, both horizontal and vertical equity considerations were identified in included HTA reports.

Conclusions: While varying legal contexts and institutional principles can lead to different interpretations of equity at the decision point, a combination of methodological and process-related practices could contribute to more equity-sensitive evaluations, especially in conjunction with enhanced dissemination of existing methodological tools. Networking initiatives on behalf of existing collaborating platforms could play an important role in this direction.

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.

On decreasing inequality in health care in a cost-effective way

Background

Scientific evidence indicates that access to health care services shown effective is often poorer among the disadvantaged people than among the non-disadvantaged. Advancing cost-effectiveness and equality in obtaining services shown effective are often stated as the two main objectives for health care.

Discussion

The important question is how to decrease inequality in a most cost-effective way. Some evidence indicates that effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions may be high among the disadvantaged patient groups. However, the relationship between decreasing inequality and cost-effectiveness is complex and depend e.g. on clinical and health care system factors.

Summary

To expand the knowledge base for advancing equality in a cost-effective way, scientific efforts on four levels are suggested: research into ways how practitioners can provide efficient services for the disadvantaged patients, widening of scope at all levels of evidence based medicine to account also for the disadvantaged, research on quality improvement and evidence implementation, as well as benchmarking research including documentation of services among the disadvantaged.

Clinical guidelines contribute to the health inequities experienced by individuals with intellectual disabilities

BACKGROUND

Clinical practice guidelines are developed to improve the quality of healthcare. However, clinical guidelines may contribute to health inequities experienced by disadvantaged groups. This study uses an equity lens developed by the International Clinical Epidemiology Network (INCLEN) to examine how well clinical guidelines address inequities experienced by individuals with intellectual disabilities.

METHODS

Nine health problems relevant to the health inequities experienced by persons with intellectual disabilities were selected. Clinical guidelines on these disorders were identified from across the world. The INCLEN equity lens was used as the basis for a purpose-designed, semistructured data collection tool. Two raters independently examined each guideline and completed the data collection tool. The data extracted by each rater were discussed at a research group consensus conference and agreement was reached on a final equity lens rating for each guideline.

RESULTS

Thirty-six guidelines were identified, one of which (2.8%) explicitly excluded persons with intellectual disabilities. Of the remaining 35, six (17.1%) met the first criterion of the equity lens, identifying persons with intellectual disabilities at high risk for the specific health problem. Eight guidelines (22.9%) contained any content on intellectual disabilities. Six guidelines addressed the fourth equity lens criterion, by giving specific consideration to the barriers to implementation of the guideline in disadvantaged populations. There were no guidelines that addressed the second, third, and fifth equity lens criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

The equity lens is a useful tool to systematically examine whether clinical guidelines address the health needs and inequities experienced by disadvantaged groups. Clinical guidelines are likely to further widen the health inequities experienced by persons with intellectual disabilities, and other disadvantaged groups, by being preferentially advantageous to the general population. There is a need to systematically incorporate methods to consider disadvantaged population groups into the processes used to develop clinical guidelines.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

Enhancing health equity has now achieved international political importance with endorsement from the World Health Assembly in 2009.  The failure of systematic reviews to consider effects on health equity is cited by decision-makers as a limitation to their ability to inform policy and program decisions. 

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review methods to assess effects on health equity in systematic reviews of effectiveness.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the following databases up to July 2 2010: MEDLINE, PsychINFO, the Cochrane Methodology Register, CINAHL, Education Resources Information Center, Education Abstracts, Criminal Justice Abstracts, Index to 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 October 7 2010.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included empirical studies of cohorts of systematic reviews that assessed methods for measuring effects on health inequalities.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted using a pre-tested form by two independent reviewers. Risk of bias was appraised for included studies according to the potential for bias in selection and detection of systematic reviews. 

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-four methodological studies were included.  The methods used by these included studies were: 1) Targeted approaches (n=22); 2) gap approaches (n=12) and gradient approach (n=1).  Gender or sex was assessed in eight out of 34 studies, socioeconomic status in ten studies, race/ethnicity in seven studies, age in seven studies, low and middle income countries in 14 studies, and two studies assessed multiple factors across health inequity may exist.Only three studies provided a definition of health equity. Four methodological approaches to assessing effects on health equity were identified: 1) descriptive assessment of reporting and analysis in systematic reviews (all 34 studies used a type of descriptive method); 2) descriptive assessment of reporting and analysis in original trials (12/34 studies); 3) analytic approaches (10/34 studies); and 4) applicability assessment (11/34 studies). Both analytic and applicability approaches were not reported transparently nor in sufficient detail to judge their 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 assess and report effects on health equity in systematic reviews.