Equity issues were not fully addressed in Cochrane human immunodeficiency virus systematic reviews

Reporting of health equity considerations in vaccine trials for COVID-19: a methodological review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

An emerging body of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on COVID-19 vaccines has served as the evidence base for public health decision-making. While it is recommended that RCTs report results by health equity stratifiers to reduce bias in health care and gaps in research, it is unknown whether this was done in COVID-19 vaccine trials. To critically examine the use of health equity stratifiers in COVID-19 vaccine trials.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted a methodological review of published COVID-19 vaccine trials available in the COVID-19 living Network Meta-Analysis systematic review database through February 8, 2023. Based on the PROGRESS-Plus framework, we examined the following health equity stratifiers: place of residence, race/ethnicity, occupation, gender/sex, religion, education, socio-economic status, social capital, age, disability, features of relationships, and temporary situations. We assessed each study in duplicate according to three criteria for comprehensive health-equity reporting: 1) describing participants, 2) reporting equity-relevant results, and 3) discussing equity-relevant implications of trial findings.

RESULTS

We reviewed 144 trial manuscripts. The most frequently used PROGRESS-Plus stratifiers to describe participants were age (100%), place of residence (100%), gender/sex (99%), and race/ethnicity (64%). Age was most often used to disaggregate or adjust results (67%), followed by gender or sex (35%). Discussions of equity-relevant implications often indicated limited generalizability of results concerning age (40% of studies). Half (47%) of the studies considered at least one health equity stratifier for all three criteria. No trials included stratifiers related to religion, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, or features of relationships.

CONCLUSION

COVID-19 vaccine trials provided a limited description of health equity stratifiers as defined by PROGRESS-Plus and infrequently disaggregated results or discussed the study implications as they related to health equity. Considering the health disparities exacerbated during the pandemic, increased uptake of PROGRESS-Plus in RCTs would support a more nuanced understanding of health disparities and better inform actions to improve health equity.

Analysis of social determinants of health and individual factors found in health equity frameworks: Applications to injury research

INTRODUCTION

This research evaluated existing health equity frameworks as they relate to social determinants of health (SDOHs) and individual factors that may impact injury outcomes and identify gaps in coverage using the Healthy People (HP) 2030 key domains.

METHODS

The study used a list of health equity frameworks sourced from previous literature. SDOHs and individual factors from each framework were identified and categorized into the Healthy People 2030 domains. Five injury topic areas were used as examples for how SDOHs and individual factors can be compared to injury topic-specific health disparities to identify health equity frameworks to apply to injury research.

RESULTS

The study identified 59 SDOHs and individual factors from the list of 33 health equity frameworks. The number of SDOHs and individual factors identified varied by Healthy People 2030 domain: Neighborhood and Built Environment contained 16 (27.1%) SDOHs and individual actors, Social and Community Context contained 22 (37.3%), Economic Stability contained 10 (16.9%), Healthcare Access and Quality contained 10 (16.9%), and Education Access and Quality contained one (1.7%). Twenty-three (39.0%) SDOHs/individual factors related to traumatic brain injury, thirteen (22.0%) related to motor vehicle crashes and suicide, 11 (18.6%) related to drowning and older adult falls. Eight frameworks (24.2%) covered all HP 2030 key domains and may be applicable to injury topics.

CONCLUSIONS

Incorporating health equity into research is critical. Health equity frameworks can provide a way to systematically incorporate health equity into research. The findings from this study may be useful to health equity research by providing a resource to injury and other public health fields.

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

Health equity frameworks are a practical tool to guide injury research, translation, evaluation, and program implementation. The findings from this study can be used to guide the application of health equity frameworks in injury research for specific topic areas.

The research on the treatment of primary immunodeficiency diseases by hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: A bibliometric analysis from 2013 to 2022

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is curative in patients with primary immunodeficiency syndrome. The safety and efficacy of HSCT as a therapeutic option for primary immunodeficiency diseases (PID) have been studied by many research groups. The purpose of our study was to perform a bibliometric analysis of research on HSCT for the treatment of PID, to assess research trends in this field, and note future research priorities. The Web of Science Core Collection (WOSCC) was used to identify relevant publications. VOSviewer and CiteSpace software were used to analyze bibliometric parameters, such as yearly records, authors, grouped authors, countries, institutions, categories and keywords. There are 602 relevant records for the last decade (2013-2022). The top 5 productive authors and high-quality paper journals are listed. Reference co-citations analysis demonstrated recent research trends were "inborn errors of immunity," "gene editing," and "enteropathy." Research on HSCT for the treatment of PID has increased rapidly in the last decade, and bibliometrics are valuable for researchers to obtain an overview of hot categories, academic collaborations and trends in this study field.

Equity Reporting in Systematic Reviews of Opioid Treatment of Chronic Non-Cancer Pain with Patient-Reported Outcomes

Chronic non-cancer pain can affect a patient's social life, ability to work, and overall quality of life (QoL). Opioid therapy is often prescribed as therapeutic treatment in chronic pain. Systematic reviews (SRs)-the pinnacle of research quality-are often used in guideline development; however, pain may differ across cultures and communities. Thus, examination of equity reporting in such SR is necessary. This study examines reporting using the PROGRESS (Place of resident, Race, Occupation, Gender, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status, Social capital)-Plus framework to examine equity within SRs with patient reported outcomes of chronic, non-cancer pain. A systematic search for SRs was conducted, which were evaluated for PROGRESS-Plus items and study characteristics were extracted. Among the 46 included SRs, seven did not include any PROGRESS-Plus items. The most commonly reported items were age, included within 34 SRs, followed by gender (30/46), and duration of pain (14/46). All other items were reported in five or less studies. Our investigation revealed a deficiency in SR's reporting of equity measures for opioid treatment of chronic non-cancer pain. Given the need to address healthcare disparities among minorities, implementing the PROGRESS-Plus framework may influence QoL and patient-centered care.

Universal Health Coverage for Antiretroviral Treatment: A Review

Universal health coverage is essential for the progress to end threats of the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome epidemic. The current review assesses the publication rate, strategies and barriers for antiretroviral therapy (ART) coverage, equity, quality of care, and financial protection. We searched Web of Science, PubMed, and Google Scholar. Of the available articles, 43.13% were on ART coverage, 40.28% were on financial protection, 10.43% were on quality of care, and 6.16% were on equity. A lack of ART, fear of unwanted disclosure, lack of transportation, unaffordable health care costs, long waiting time to receive care, and poverty were barriers to ART coverage. Catastrophic health care costs were higher among individuals who were living in rural settings, walked greater distances to reach health care institutions, had a lower socioeconomic status, and were immunocompromised. There were challenges to the provision of quality of care, including health care providers' inadequate salary, high workload and inadequate health workforce, inappropriate infrastructure, lack of training opportunities, unclear division of responsibility, and the presence of strict auditing. In conclusion, ART coverage was below the global average, and key populations were disproportionally less covered with ART in most countries. Huge catastrophic health expenditures were observed. UHC contexts of ART will be improved by reaching people with poor socioeconomic status, delivering appropriate services, establishing a proper health workforce and service stewardship.

Health equity guiding frameworks and indices in injury: A review of the literature

BACKGROUND

In early 2021, CDC released the CORE Health Equity Strategy, which resolves to integrate a comprehensive health equity approach to the work of the Agency. One priority of the Injury Center's Division of Injury Prevention is to move health equity research in injury forward. The purpose of this research is to perform an initial exploration of health equity guiding frameworks and indices to better understand which of these has been applied to injury research topics.

METHODS

A PubMed and CINAHL search of meta-analysis and systematic review articles was conducted from January 1998 through April 2022. Articles of any type and additional frameworks/indices were also identified from staff knowledge of the literature. Books were also considered, where accessible. The following areas were reviewed for each resource: population addressed, guiding framework/index, other health equity variables, gaps identified, and whether the articles addressed an injury topic.

FINDINGS

The PubMed/CINAHL search produced 230 articles, and an additional 29 articles and 8 books were added from previous knowledge of the literature, resulting in a total of 267 resources for review. There were 60 frameworks/indices compiled that were relevant to health equity. Out of all the resources, three reported on an injury topic and used the PROGRESS-Plus framework, the WHO Social Determinants of Health Conceptual Framework, and a social-ecological framework.

CONCLUSIONS

This study found there were many frameworks/indices for measuring health equity; however, there were few injury-related meta-analysis and systematic review articles. Some frameworks/indices may be more appropriate than others for measuring health equity in injury topic areas, depending on which social determinants of health (SDOHs) they address.

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

Measuring health equity in injury and other public health research areas can help build a foundation of evidence. Moving forward, injury researchers can consider the frameworks/indices identified through this study in their health equity injury research.

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.

Implementation science should give higher priority to health equity

Background

There is growing urgency to tackle issues of equity and justice in the USA and worldwide. Health equity, a framing that moves away from a deficit mindset of what society is doing poorly (disparities) to one that is positive about what society can achieve, is becoming more prominent in health research that uses implementation science approaches. Equity begins with justice—health differences often reflect societal injustices. Applying the perspectives and tools of implementation science has potential for immediate impact to improve health equity.

Main text

We propose a vision and set of action steps for making health equity a more prominent and central aim of implementation science, thus committing to conduct implementation science through equity-focused principles to achieve this vision in U.S. research and practice. We identify and discuss challenges in current health disparities approaches that do not fully consider social determinants. Implementation research challenges are outlined in three areas: limitations of the evidence base, underdeveloped measures and methods, and inadequate attention to context. To address these challenges, we offer recommendations that seek to (1) link social determinants with health outcomes, (2) build equity into all policies, (3) use equity-relevant metrics, (4) study what is already happening, (5) integrate equity into implementation models, (6) design and tailor implementation strategies, (7) connect to systems and sectors outside of health, (8) engage organizations in internal and external equity efforts, (9) build capacity for equity in implementation science, and (10) focus on equity in dissemination efforts.

Conclusions

Every project in implementation science should include an equity focus. For some studies, equity is the main goal of the project and a central feature of all aspects of the project. In other studies, equity is part of a project but not the singular focus. In these studies, we should, at a minimum, ensure that we “leave no one behind” and that existing disparities are not widened. With a stronger commitment to health equity from funders, researchers, practitioners, advocates, evaluators, and policy makers, we can harvest the rewards of the resources being invested in health-related research to eliminate disparities, resulting in health equity.

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.

Bibliometric analysis of the papers on urban education

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to identify the papers published on urban education and analyze the characteristics of these papers to contribute to the urban education research over the recent years.

Design/methodology/approach

Researchers generated a comprehensive list of the articles published between 2010 and 2017 in the field of “urban education” by searching the Social Sciences Citation Index database, using the keywords of “urban” and “education.” As an additional criterion, all the articles published between 2010 and 2017 in the journals of Urban Education and Education and Urban Society were included.

Findings

There are a total of 2,123 publications that were checked and retrieved in the field of “urban education” between 2010 and 2017. Although the number of publications differs year by year, the sum of the citations received the increase from year to year on a regular basis. There are 35 articles that were cited more than h-index, as h-classics in this field for this period and top 10 of these h-classics are reported in this study. Urban Education and Education and Urban Society were revealed as the most prominent journals in the field of urban education. Also, the results show that the most cited articles, the most prolific authors and organizations, and top journals in this field are from the USA.

Research limitations/implications

The scope of this study is not extensive enough, and the data obtained are not comprehensive enough. The survey was limited to the keyword of “urban education” in the fields of title, abstract, author keywords and keywords plus.

Practical implications

This bibliometric analysis contributes to the literature of urban education through a historical perspective. Results show that the “urban education” field attracts more attention of the researchers and the impacts of these publications are increasing from year to year. Also, there is a prevalence of the USA in the field of urban education.

Originality/value

The information presented in this paper provides insight into the development of urban education research over the recent years. The data obtained in this study can be used as a reference for future researchers in urban education.