Use of programme theory to understand the differential effects of interventions across socio-economic groups in systematic reviews-a systematic methodology review

Interventions targeting the mental health and wellbeing of care-experienced children and young people in higher-income countries: Evidence map and systematic review

BACKGROUND

The mental health and wellbeing of care-experienced children and young people (i.e. foster care, kinship care, residential care) is poorer than non-care-experienced populations. The Care-experienced cHildren and young people's Interventions to improve Mental health and wEll-being outcomes Systematic review (CHIMES) aimed to synthesise the international evidence base for interventions targeting subjective wellbeing, mental health and suicide amongst care-experienced young people aged ≤ 25 years.

METHODS

For the first phase of the review, we constructed an evidence map identifying key clusters and gaps in interventions and evaluations. Studies were identified through 16 electronic databases and 22 health and social care websites, in addition to expert recommendations, citation tracking and screening of relevant systematic reviews. We charted interventions and evaluations with a summary narrative, tables and infographics.

RESULTS

In total, 64 interventions with 124 associated study reports were eligible. The majority of study reports were from the USA (n = 77). Interventions primarily targeted children and young people's skills and competencies (n = 9 interventions), the parental functioning and practices of carers (n = 26), or a combination of the two (n = 15). While theoretically under-specified, interventions were largely informed by theories of Attachment, Positive Youth Development, and Social Learning Theory. Current evaluations prioritised outcomes (n = 86) and processes (n = 50), with a paucity of study reports including theoretical descriptions (n = 24) or economic evaluations (n = 1). Interventions most frequently targeted outcomes related to mental, behavioural or neurodevelopmental disorders, notably total social, emotional and behavioural problems (n = 48 interventions) and externalising problem behaviours (n = 26). There were a limited number of interventions targeting subjective wellbeing or suicide-related outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Future intervention development might focus on structural-level intervention theories and components, and target outcomes related to subjective wellbeing and suicide. In accordance with current methodological guidance for intervention development and evaluation, research needs to integrate theoretical, outcome, process and economic evaluation in order to strengthen the evidence base.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020177478.

Evidence Clearinghouses as Tools to Advance Health Equity: What We Know from a Systematic Scan

Evidence clearinghouses evaluate and summarize literature to help decision-makers prioritize and invest in evidence-informed interventions. Clearinghouses and related practice-oriented tools are continuously evolving; however, it is unclear the extent to which these tools assess and summarize evidence describing an intervention's impact on health equity. We conducted a systematic scan to explore how clearinghouses communicated an intervention's equity impact and reviewed their underlying methods and how they defined and operationalized health equity. In 2021, we identified 18 clearinghouses that were US-focused, web-based registries of interventions that assigned an intervention effectiveness rating for improving community health and the social determinants of health. We reviewed each clearinghouse's website and collected publicly available information about their health equity impact review, review methods, and health equity definitions and values. We conducted a comparative analysis among select clearinghouses using qualitative methods. Among the 18 clearinghouses, fewer than half (only seven) summarized an intervention's potential impact on health equity. Overall, those seven clearinghouses defined and operationalized equity differently, and most lacked transparency in their review methods. Clearinghouses used one or more approaches to communicate findings from their review: summarize study findings on differential impact for subpopulations, curate interventions that reduce health disparities, and/or assign a disparity/equity rating to each intervention. Evidence clearinghouses can enhance equity-focused methods and be transparent in their underlying values to better support the uptake and implementation of evidence-informed interventions to advance health equity. However, clearinghouses are unable to do so without underlying equity-focused empirical evidence.

What factors are important to whom in what context, when adults are prescribed hearing aids for hearing loss? A realist review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Hearing aids are the gold standard treatment to help manage hearing loss. However, not everyone who needs them has them, and of those who do, a significant proportion of people do not use them at all, or use them infrequently. Despite literature reviews listing key barriers and enablers to the uptake and use of hearing aids, there is little evidence to describe how this varies by population and context. This review will describe what factors are important to whom in what context when considering the provision of hearing aids for hearing loss in adults.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The aims of this review are as follows: (1) To iteratively review and synthesise evidence surrounding the provision of hearing aids for hearing loss in adults. (2) To generate a theory-driven understanding of factors that are important, for whom, and in what context. (3) To develop a programme theory describing contexts that can support the provision of hearing aids to result in improved outcomes for adults with hearing loss. A scoping literature search will aid the development of programme theories, to explain how the intervention is expect to work, for whom, in what circumstances and in which contexts. We will locate evidence in the following databases: CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMED, Web of Science with no date restrictions. A realist analytic approach will be used to refute and refine these initial programme theories. Throughout the review, relevant key stakeholders (eg, patients and clinicians) will be consulted to test and refine the programme theories.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study was approved by the University of Nottingham Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences Research Ethics Committee: (FMHS 95-0820) and the London Brent NHS Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 21/PR/0259). The review will be reported according to the RAMESES guidelines and published in a peer-reviewed journal.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021282049.

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.

Digital tools to support the maintenance of physical activity in people with long-term conditions: A scoping review

Objective

This scoping review aimed to bring together and identify digital tools that support people with one or more long-term conditions to maintain physical activity and describe their components and theoretical underpinnings.

Methods

Searches were conducted in Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Medline, EMBASE, IEEE Xplore, PsycINFO, Scopus, Google Scholar and clinical trial databases, for studies published between 2009 and 2019, across a range of long-term conditions. Screening and data extraction was undertaken by two independent reviewers and the Preferred Reporting Items for Scoping Reviews guidelines informed the review's conduct and reporting.

Results

A total of 38 results were identified from 34 studies, with the majority randomised controlled trials or protocols, with cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus and obesity the most common long-term conditions. Comorbidities were reported in >50% of studies but did not clearly inform intervention development. Most digital tools were web-browser-based ± wearables/trackers, telerehabilitation tools or gaming devices/components. Mobile device applications and combination short message service/activity trackers/wearables were also identified. Most interventions were supported by a facilitator, often for goal setting/feedback and/or monitoring. Physical activity maintenance outcomes were mostly reported at 9 months or 3 months post-intervention, while theoretical underpinnings were commonly social cognitive theory, the transtheoretical model and the theory of planned behaviour.

Conclusions

This review mapped the literature on a wide range of digital tools and long-term conditions. It identified the increasing use of digital tools, in combination with human support, to help people with long-term conditions, to maintain physical activity, commonly for under a year post-intervention. Clear gaps were the lack of digital tools for multimorbid long-term conditions, longer-term follow-ups, understanding participant's experiences and informs future questions around effectiveness.

Uptake and use of a minimum data set (MDS) for older people living and dying in care homes in England: a realist review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Care homes provide nursing and social care for older people who can no longer live independently at home. In the UK, there is no consistent approach to how information about residents' medical history, care needs and preferences are collected and shared. This limits opportunities to understand the care home population, have a systematic approach to assessment and documentation of care, identifiy care home residents at risk of deterioration and review care. Countries with standardised approaches to residents' assessment, care planning and review (eg, minimum data sets (MDS)) use the data to understand the care home population, guide resource allocation, monitor services delivery and for research. The aim of this realist review is to develop a theory-driven understanding of how care home staff implement and use MDS to plan and deliver care of individual residents.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A realist review will be conducted in three research stages.Stage 1 will scope the literature and develop candidate programme theories of what ensures effective uptake and sustained implementation of an MDS.Stage2 will test and refine these theories through further iterative searches of the evidence from the literature to establish how effective uptake of an MDS can be achieved.Stage 3 will consult with relevant stakeholders to test or refine the programme theory (theories) of how an MDS works at the resident level of care for different stakeholders and in what circumstances. Data synthesis will use realist logic to align data from each eligible article with possible context-mechanism-outcome configurations or specific elements that answer the research questions.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The University of Hertfordshire Ethics Committee has approved this study (HSK/SF/UH/04169). Findings will be disseminated through briefings with stakeholders, conference presentations, a national consultation on the use of an MDS in UK long-term care settings, publications in peer-reviewed journals and in print and social media publications accessible to residents, relatives and care home staff.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020171323; this review protocol is registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews.

Effects of prevention and harm reduction interventions on gambling behaviours and gambling related harm: An umbrella review

BACKGROUND

Harms related to gambling have been found not only to affect problem gamblers, but also to occur amongst low- and moderate-risk gamblers. This has resulted in calls for a public health approach to address a possible 'prevention paradox' in gambling related harm. The aim of this study was to evaluate the systematic review evidence base on the effects of prevention and harm reduction interventions on gambling behaviours, and gambling related harm. We also aimed to examine differential effects of interventions across socio-demographic groups.

METHODS

Systematic methods were used to locate and evaluate published systematic reviews of prevention and harm reduction interventions. We designed the review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Equity extension Guidelines. Four databases were searched from their start date until May 2018. The quality of the included articles was determined using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2).

RESULTS

Ten systematic reviews were identified reporting 55 unique relevant primary studies. Much of the review evidence-base related to pre-commitment and limit setting (24%), self-exclusion (20%), youth prevention programmes (20%), and machine messages/feedback (20%). The effectiveness of harm reduction interventions are limited by the extent to which users adhere to voluntary systems. Less than half of studies examining youth prevention programmes demonstrated positive effects on behaviour. No review extracted data or reported on the differential effects of intervention strategies across sociodemographic groups. The quality of the included reviews (and their primary studies) were generally poor and clear gaps in the evidence base have been highlighted.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence base is dominated by evaluations of individual-level harm reduction interventions, with a paucity of research on supply reduction interventions. Review conclusions are limited by the quality and robustness of the primary research. Future research should consider the equity effects of intervention strategies.

Occupational Diseases among Workers in Lower and Higher Socioeconomic Positions

Background: To determine differences between workers in lower and higher socioeconomic positions (SEP) in incidences of occupational disease (OD) and incapacity for work due to ODs. Methods: From a Dutch dynamic prospective cohort of occupational physicians (OPs), ODs assessed by OPs were retrieved for lower and higher SEP groups. Results: Among the lower SEP, musculoskeletal disorders, and noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) comprised two-thirds of the OD diagnoses. Among the higher SEP, stress/burnout comprised 60% of the OD diagnoses. Temporary and permanent incapacity for work due to work-related lower back disorders and repetitive strain injuries differed significantly between workers in lower compared to higher SEP. Conclusions: Occupational diseases occur at a 2.7 higher incidence rate for workers in lower SEP compared with higher SEP. Incapacity for work varies between the type of OD and the level of SEP.

Toward a theory-led metaframework for considering socioeconomic health inequalities within systematic reviews

OBJECTIVES

To develop a theory-led framework to inform reviewers' understanding of what, how, and why health care interventions may lead to differential effects across socioeconomic groups.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A metaframework approach combined two theoretical perspectives (socioeconomic health inequalities and complex interventions) into a single framework to inform socioeconomic health inequality considerations in systematic reviews.

RESULTS

Four theories relating to complexity within systematic reviews and 16 health inequalities intervention theories informed the development of a metaframework. Factors relating to the type of intervention, implementation, context, participant response, and mechanisms associated with differential effects across socioeconomic groups were identified. The metaframework can inform; reviewer discussions around how socioeconomic status (SES) can moderate intervention effectiveness during question formulation, approaches to data extraction and help identify a priori analysis considerations.

CONCLUSION

The metaframework offers a transparent, practical, theory-led approach to inform a program theory for what, how, and why interventions work for different SES groups in systematic reviews. It can enhance existing guidance on conducting systematic reviews that consider health inequalities, increase awareness of how SES can moderate intervention effectiveness, and encourage a greater engagement with theory throughout the review process.