Engaging knowledge users in development of the CONSORT-Equity 2017 reporting guideline: a qualitative study using in-depth interviews

Methodology of clinical trials on sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors registered on ClinicalTrials.gov: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

The research on sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors has been increasing rapidly in the last decade, as well as indications for their use. This study aimed to analyze the methodological characteristics of clinical trials on SGLT2 inhibitors registered on ClinicalTrials.gov.

DESIGN

We conducted a cross-sectional study of trials on SGLT2 inhibitors registered on ClinicalTrials.gov up to November 11, 2022. We included clinical trials that tested SGLT2 inhibitors for any clinical condition, as a single or combined SGLT2 therapy, compared to any other medication or placebo and mapped their characteristics.

RESULTS

We identified 1102 eligible trials on 14 different SGLT2 inhibitors. The first trial registration was in 2005. There were 993 (90%) interventional and 109 (10%) observational trials. Most trials were in Phase 1 (29%), Phase 3 (23%), or Phase 4 (24%). Interventional trials were mostly randomized (85%); almost half of them did not use masking (44%). Trials on empagliflozin, dapagliflozin, and canagliflozin accounted for 75% of all trials. More than 60% of trials included patients with diabetes mellitus, 13% included only healthy subjects, and 12% included patients with heart diseases. Overall, these trials included more than 9.5 million participants (~ 312,000 of which in interventional studies). Almost 65% of all clinical trials were industry-funded. Most trials were completed (60%) and 35% of those reported results. For trials that are obligated to report results by the Food and Drugs Administration (FDA), 88% of them did so. Trials fully or partially funded by industry more frequently published results compared to non-industry funded trials (46.1% vs. 11.2%; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The number of registered trials on SGLT2 inhibitors is increasing progressively along with expanding indications for its use, shifting from diabetes mellitus to cardiovascular and renal diseases. Public reporting of trial results improved with time but remains suboptimal.

Improving social justice in observational studies: protocol for the development of a global and Indigenous STROBE-equity reporting guideline

BACKGROUND

Addressing persistent and pervasive health inequities is a global moral imperative, which has been highlighted and magnified by the societal and health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Observational studies can aid our understanding of the impact of health and structural oppression based on the intersection of gender, race, ethnicity, age and other factors, as they frequently collect this data. However, the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline, does not provide guidance related to reporting of health equity. The goal of this project is to develop a STROBE-Equity reporting guideline extension.

METHODS

We assembled a diverse team across multiple domains, including gender, age, ethnicity, Indigenous background, disciplines, geographies, lived experience of health inequity and decision-making organizations. Using an inclusive, integrated knowledge translation approach, we will implement a five-phase plan which will include: (1) assessing the reporting of health equity in published observational studies, (2) seeking wide international feedback on items to improve reporting of health equity, (3) establishing consensus amongst knowledge users and researchers, (4) evaluating in partnership with Indigenous contributors the relevance to Indigenous peoples who have globally experienced the oppressive legacy of colonization, and (5) widely disseminating and seeking endorsement from relevant knowledge users. We will seek input from external collaborators using social media, mailing lists and other communication channels.

DISCUSSION

Achieving global imperatives such as the Sustainable Development Goals (e.g., SDG 10 Reduced inequalities, SDG 3 Good health and wellbeing) requires advancing health equity in research. The implementation of the STROBE-Equity guidelines will enable a better awareness and understanding of health inequities through better reporting. We will broadly disseminate the reporting guideline with tools to enable adoption and use by journal editors, authors, and funding agencies, using diverse strategies tailored to specific audiences.

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.

Access to Refugee and Migrant Mental Health Care Services during the First Six Months of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Canadian Refugee Clinician Survey

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a major impact on the mental health of refugees and migrants. This study aimed to assess refugee clinician perspectives on mental health care during the COVID-19 pandemic, specifically access to and delivery of community mental health care services. We utilized a mixed methods design. We surveyed members of a national network of Canadian clinicians caring for refugees and migrants. Seventy-seven clinicians with experience caring for refugee populations, representing an 84% response rate, participated in the online survey, 11 of whom also participated in semi-structured interviews. We report three major themes: exacerbation of mental health issues and inequities in social determinants of health, and decreased access to integrated primary care and community migrant services. Clinicians reported major challenges delivering care during the first 6 months of the pandemic related to access to care and providing virtual care. Clinicians described perspectives on improving the management of refugee mental health, including increasing access to community resources and virtual care. The majority of clinicians reported that technology-assisted psychotherapy appears feasible to arrange, acceptable and may increase health equity for their refugee patients. However, major limitations of virtual care included technological barriers, communication and global mental health issues, and privacy concerns. In summary, the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated social and health inequities within refugee and migrant populations in Canada and challenged the way mental health care is traditionally delivered. However, the pandemic has provided new avenues for the delivery of care virtually, albeit not without additional and unique barriers.

Social inequalities in breast cancer screening: evaluating written communications with immigrant Haitian women in Montreal

Background

The province of Quebec (Canada) has implemented a breast cancer screening program to diagnose this cancer at an early stage. The strategy is to refer women 50 to 69 years old for a mammogram every two years by sending an invitation letter that acts as a prescription. Ninety per cent (90%) of deaths due to breast cancer occur in women aged 50 and over. Numerous studies have shown social inequalities in health for most diseases. With breast cancer, a significant paradox arises: its incidence is lower among disadvantaged women and yet, more of them die from this disease. The health care system might play a role in this inequality. The scientific literature documents the potential for creating such inequalities when prevention does not consider equity among social groups. Immigrant women are often disadvantaged. They die of breast cancer more than non-immigrants. Studies attribute this to late-stage diagnosis due to poor adherence to mammography screening programs.

Purpose of the study

The main objective of our research is to assess how Haitian immigrant women in Montreal are reached by the Quebec Breast Cancer Screening Program, and specifically how they perceive the mammogram referral letter sent by the program.

Methods

The study uses a two-step qualitative method: i) In-depth interviews with influential community workers to identify the most relevant issues; ii) Focus groups with disadvantaged women from Montreal’s Haitian community.

Results

A mammogram referral letter from the Breast Cancer Screening Program may be a barrier to compliance with mammography by underprivileged Haitian women in Montreal. This might be attributable to a low level of literacy, poor knowledge of the disease, and lack of financial resources.

Conclusion

Barriers may be underestimated in underprivileged immigrant and non-immigrant communities. A preventive strategy must be adapted to different sub-groups and must also take into account lower literacy levels. To increase mammography uptake, it is crucial that the benefits of prevention be clearly identified and described in understandable terms. Finally, economic access to follow-up measures should be considered.

Protocol for the development of guidance for stakeholder engagement in health and healthcare guideline development and implementation

BACKGROUND

Stakeholder engagement has become widely accepted as a necessary component of guideline development and implementation. While frameworks for developing guidelines express the need for those potentially affected by guideline recommendations to be involved in their development, there is a lack of consensus on how this should be done in practice. Further, there is a lack of guidance on how to equitably and meaningfully engage multiple stakeholders. We aim to develop guidance for the meaningful and equitable engagement of multiple stakeholders in guideline development and implementation.

METHODS

This will be a multi-stage project. The first stage is to conduct a series of four systematic reviews. These will (1) describe existing guidance and methods for stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation, (2) characterize barriers and facilitators to stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation, (3) explore the impact of stakeholder engagement on guideline development and implementation, and (4) identify issues related to conflicts of interest when engaging multiple stakeholders in guideline development and implementation.

DISCUSSION

We will collaborate with our multiple and diverse stakeholders to develop guidance for multi-stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation. We will use the results of the systematic reviews to develop a candidate list of draft guidance recommendations and will seek broad feedback on the draft guidance via an online survey of guideline developers and external stakeholders. An invited group of representatives from all stakeholder groups will discuss the results of the survey at a consensus meeting which will inform the development of the final guidance papers. Our overall goal is to improve the development of guidelines through meaningful and equitable multi-stakeholder engagement, and subsequently to improve health outcomes and reduce inequities in health.

Taking an integrated knowledge translation approach in research to develop the CONSORT-Equity 2017 reporting guideline: an observational study

OBJECTIVE

We describe the use of an integrated knowledge translation (KT) approach in the development of the CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials extension for equity ('CONSORT-Equity 2017'), and advisory board-research team members' ('the team') perceptions of the integrated KT process.

DESIGN

This is an observational study to describe team processes and experience with a structured integrated KT approach to develop CONSORT-Equity 2017. Participant observation to describe team processes and a survey were used with the 38 team members.

SETTING

Use of the CONSORT health research reporting guideline contributes to an evidence base for health systems decision-making, and CONSORT-Equity 2017 may improve reporting about health equity-relevant evidence. An integrated KT research approach engages knowledge users (those for whom the research is meant to be useful) with researchers to co-develop research evidence and is more likely to produce findings that are applied in practice or policy.

PARTICIPANTS

Researchers adopted an integrated KT approach and invited knowledge users to form a team.

RESULTS

An integrated KT approach was used in the development of CONSORT-Equity 2017 and structured replicable steps. The process for co-developing the reporting guideline involved two stages: (1) establishing guiding features for co-development and (2) research actions that supported the co-development of the reporting guideline. Stage 1 consisted of four steps: finding common ground, forming an advisory board, committing to ethical guidance and clarifying theoretical research assumptions. Bound by the stage 1 guiding features of an integrated KT approach, stage 2 consisted of five steps during which studies for consensus-based reporting guidelines were conducted. Of 38 team members, 25 (67.5%) completed a survey about their perceptions of the integrated KT approach.

CONCLUSIONS

An integrated KT approach can be used to engage a team to co-develop reporting guidelines. Further study is needed to understand the use of an integrated KT approach in the development of reporting guidelines.