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.

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.

Behavioural interventions delivered through interactive social media for health behaviour change, health outcomes, and health equity in the adult population.

BACKGROUND: Social networking platforms offer a wide reach for public health interventions allowing communication with broad audiences using tools that are generally free and straightforward to use and may be combined with other components, such as public health policies. We define interactive social media as activities, practices, or behaviours among communities of people who have gathered online to interactively share information, knowledge, and opinions. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the effectiveness of interactive social media interventions, in which adults are able to communicate directly with each other, on changing health behaviours, body functions, psychological health, well-being, and adverse effects. Our secondary objective was to assess the effects of these interventions on the health of populations who experience health inequity as defined by PROGRESS-Plus. We assessed whether there is evidence about PROGRESS-Plus populations being included in studies and whether results are analysed across any of these characteristics. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE (including trial registries) and PsycINFO. We used Google, Web of Science, and relevant web sites to identify additional studies and searched reference lists of included studies. We searched for published and unpublished studies from 2001 until June 1, 2020. We did not limit results by language. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled before-and-after (CBAs) and interrupted time series studies (ITSs). We included studies in which the intervention website, app, or social media platform described a goal of changing a health behaviour, or included a behaviour change technique. The social media intervention had to be delivered to adults via a commonly-used social media platform or one that mimicked a commonly-used platform. We included studies comparing an interactive social media intervention alone or as a component of a multi-component intervention with either a non-interactive social media control or an active but less-interactive social media comparator (e.g. a moderated versus an unmoderated discussion group). Our main outcomes were health behaviours (e.g. physical activity), body function outcomes (e.g. blood glucose), psychological health outcomes (e.g. depression), well-being, and adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were process outcomes important for behaviour change and included knowledge, attitudes, intention and motivation, perceived susceptibility, self-efficacy, and social support. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used a pre-tested data extraction form and collected data independently, in duplicate. Because we aimed to assess broad outcomes, we extracted only one outcome per main and secondary outcome categories prioritised by those that were the primary outcome as reported by the study authors, used in a sample size calculation, and patient-important. MAIN RESULTS: We included 88 studies (871,378 participants), of which 84 were RCTs, three were CBAs and one was an ITS. The majority of the studies were conducted in the USA (54%). In total, 86% were conducted in high-income countries and the remaining 14% in upper middle-income countries. The most commonly used social media platform was Facebook (39%) with few studies utilising other platforms such as WeChat, Twitter, WhatsApp, and Google Hangouts. Many studies (48%) used web-based communities or apps that mimic functions of these well-known social media platforms. We compared studies assessing interactive social media interventions with non-interactive social media interventions, which included paper-based or in-person interventions or no intervention. We only reported the RCT results in our 'Summary of findings' table. We found a range of effects on health behaviours, such as breastfeeding, condom use, diet quality, medication adherence, medical screening and testing, physical activity, tobacco use, and vaccination. For example, these interventions may increase physical activity and medical screening tests but there was little to no effect for other health behaviours, such as improved diet or reduced tobacco use (20,139 participants in 54 RCTs). For body function outcomes, interactive social media interventions may result in small but important positive effects, such as a small but important positive effect on weight loss and a small but important reduction in resting heart rate (4521 participants in 30 RCTs). Interactive social media may improve overall well-being (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.79, moderate effect, low-certainty evidence) demonstrated by an increase of 3.77 points on a general well-being scale (from 1.15 to 6.48 points higher) where scores range from 14 to 70 (3792 participants in 16 studies). We found no difference in effect on psychological outcomes (depression and distress) representing a difference of 0.1 points on a standard scale in which scores range from 0 to 63 points (SMD -0.01, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.12, low-certainty evidence, 2070 participants in 12 RCTs). We also compared studies assessing interactive social media interventions with those with an active but less interactive social media control (11 studies). Four RCTs (1523 participants) that reported on physical activity found an improvement demonstrated by an increase of 28 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity per week (from 10 to 47 minutes more, SMD 0.35, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.59, small effect, very low-certainty evidence). Two studies found little to no difference in well-being for those in the intervention and control groups (SMD 0.02, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.13, small effect, low-certainty evidence), demonstrated by a mean change of 0.4 points on a scale with a range of 0 to 100. Adverse events related to the social media component of the interventions, such as privacy issues, were not reported in any of our included studies. We were unable to conduct planned subgroup analyses related to health equity as only four studies reported relevant data. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review combined data for a variety of outcomes and found that social media interventions that aim to increase physical activity may be effective and social media interventions may improve well-being. While we assessed many other outcomes, there were too few studies to compare or, where there were studies, the evidence was uncertain. None of our included studies reported adverse effects related to the social media component of the intervention. Future studies should assess adverse events related to the interactive social media component and should report on population characteristics to increase our understanding of the potential effect of these interventions on reducing health inequities.

Physical distancing messages targeting youth on the social media accounts of Canadian public health entities and the use of behavioral change techniques.

INTRODUCTION: Physical distancing (PD) is an important public health strategy to reduce the transmission of COVID-19 and has been promoted by public health authorities through social media. Although youth have a tendency to engage in high-risk behaviors that could facilitate COVID-19 transmission, there is limited research on the characteristics of PD messaging targeting this population on social media platforms with which youth frequently engage. This study examined social media posts created by Canadian public health entities (PHEs) with PD messaging aimed at youth and young adults aged 16-29 years and reported behavioral change techniques (BCTs) used in these posts. METHODS: A content analysis of all social media posts of Canadian PHEs from Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube were conducted from April 1st to May 31st, 2020. Posts were classified as either implicitly or explicitly targeting youth and young adults. BCTs in social media posts were identified and classified based on Behavior Change Technique Taxonomy version 1 (BCTTv1). Frequency counts and proportions were used to describe the data. RESULTS: In total, 319 youth-targeted PD posts were identified. Over 43% of the posts originated from Ontario Regional public health units, and 36.4 and 32.6% of them were extracted from Twitter and Facebook, respectively. Only 5.3% of the total posts explicitly targeted youth. Explicit posts were most frequent from federal PHEs and posted on YouTube. Implicit posts elicited more interactions than explicit posts regardless of jurisdiction level or social media format. Three-quarters of the posts contained at least one BCT, with a greater portion of BCTs found within implicit posts (75%) than explicit posts (52.9%). The most common BCTs from explicit posts were instructions on how to perform a behavior (25.0%) and restructuring the social environment (18.8%). CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for more PD messaging that explicitly targets youth. BCTs should be used when designing posts to deliver public health messages and social media platforms should be selected depending on the target population.

Evaluation of an in vitro coronary stent thrombosis model for preclinical assessment.

Stent thrombosis remains an infrequent but significant complication following percutaneous coronary intervention. Preclinical models to rapidly screen and validate therapeutic compounds for efficacy are lacking. Herein, we describe a reproducible, high throughput and cost-effective method to evaluate candidate therapeutics and devices for either treatment or propensity to develop stent thrombosis in an in vitro bench-top model. Increasing degree of stent malapposition (0.00 mm, 0.10 mm, 0.25 mm and 0.50 mm) was associated with increasing thrombosis and luminal area occlusion (4.1 ± 0.5%, 6.3 ± 0.5%, 19.7 ± 4.5%, and 92.6 ± 7.4%, p < 0.0001, respectively). Differences in stent design in the form of bare-metal, drug-eluting, and bioresorbable vascular scaffolds demonstrated differences in stent thrombus burden (14.7 ± 3.8% vs. 20.5 ± 3.1% vs. 86.8 ± 5.3%, p < 0.01, respectively). Finally, thrombus burden was significantly reduced when healthy blood samples were incubated with Heparin, ASA/Ticagrelor (DAPT), and Heparin+DAPT compared to control (DMSO) at 4.1 ± 0.6%, 6.9 ± 1.7%, 4.5 ± 1.2%, and 12.1 ± 1.8%, respectively (p < 0.01). The reported model produces high throughput reproducible thrombosis results across a spectrum of antithrombotic agents, stent design, and degrees of apposition. Importantly, performance recapitulates clinical observations of antiplatelet/antithrombotic regimens as well as device and deployment characteristics. Accordingly, this model may serve as a screening tool for candidate therapies in preclinical evaluation.

Behavior Change Techniques Included in Reports of Social Media Interventions for Promoting Health Behaviors in Adults: Content Analysis Within a Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Social media are an increasingly commonly used platform for delivering health promotion interventions. Although recent research has focused on the effectiveness of social media interventions for health promotion, very little is known about the optimal content within such interventions, and the active ingredients to promote health behavior change using social media are not clear. Identifying which behavior change techniques (BCTs) are reported may help to clarify the content of interventions using a generalizable terminology that may facilitate future intervention development. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify which BCTs are reported in social media interventions for promoting health behavior change in adults. METHODS: We included 71 studies conducted with adult participants (aged ≥18 years) and for which social media intervention was considered interactive in a Cochrane review of the effectiveness of such interventions. We developed a coding manual informed by the Behavior Change Technique Taxonomy version 1 (BCTTv1) to identify BCTs in the included studies. We identified BCTs in all study arms (including control) and described BCTs in the group and self-directed components of studies. We characterized the dose of delivery for each BCT by low and high intensity. We used descriptive analyses to characterize the reported BCTs. RESULTS: Our data consisted of 71 studies published from 2001 to 2017, mainly conducted in high-income countries (n=65). Most studies (n=31) used tailored, interactive websites to deliver the intervention; Facebook was the most used mainstream platform. In developing our coding manual, we adapted some BCTTv1 instructions to better capture unique nuances of how BCTs were operationalized in social media with respect to likes, retweets, smiles, congratulations, and badges. Social support (unspecified), instruction on how to perform the behavior, and credible source were most frequently identified BCTs in intervention arms of studies and group-delivery settings, whereas instruction on how to perform the behavior was most commonly applied in self-directed components of studies, control arms, and individual participant settings. Instruction on how to perform the behavior was also the most frequently reported BCT in both intervention and control arms simultaneously. Instruction on how to perform the behavior, social support (unspecified), self-monitoring of behavior, information about health consequences, and credible source were identified in the top 5 BCTs delivered with the highest intensity. CONCLUSIONS: This study within a review provides a detailed description of the BCTs and their dose to promote behavior change in web-based, interactive social media interventions. Clarifying active ingredients in social media interventions and the intensity of their delivery may help to develop future interventions that can more clearly build upon the existing evidence.

Antithrombotic therapy for durable left ventricular assist devices: protocol for a living systematic review with indirect comparison/network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have emerged as a successful treatment option for patients with end-stage heart failure. Compared with the best medical therapy, LVADs improve survival and enhance functional capacity and quality of life. However, two major complications compromise this patient population's outcomes: thrombosis and bleeding. Despite technological innovations and better hemocompatibility, these devices alter the rheology, triggering the coagulation cascade and, therefore, require antithrombotic therapy. Anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapies represent the current standard of care. Still, inconsistency in the literature exists, especially whether antiplatelet therapy is required, whether direct oral anticoagulants can replace vitamin K antagonists and even whether phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors with their antithrombotic effects could be added to the regimen of anticoagulation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will perform a living systematic review with network meta-analysis and indirect comparison between current antithrombotic therapies, which have and have not been directly compared within clinical trials and observational studies. We will systematically search the following electronic sources: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE) and Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE). We will exclusively examine studies published in English from 2016 to the present. Studies conducted before 2016 will be omitted since our primary focus is evaluating continuous flow devices. Two independent reviewers will assess the articles by title, abstract and full text; any disagreement will be resolved through discussion, and a third reviewer will be involved if necessary. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool will be used to assess the risk of bias. We will then conduct a pairwise meta-analysis; if the assumption of transitivity is satisfied, we will proceed with network meta-analysis using Bayesian methodology. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Formal ethical approval is not required as no primary data are collected. This systematic review and network meta-analysis will delineate the risks of stroke, thromboembolic events, pump thrombosis, gastrointestinal bleeding and mortality in patients equipped with LVADs who are subjected to various antithrombotic regimens. The findings will be disseminated via a peer-reviewed publication and presented at conference meetings. This will enhance clinical practice and guide future research on anticoagulation strategies within this distinct patient cohort. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023465288.

Campbell Standards: Modernizing Campbell's Methodologic Expectations for Campbell Collaboration Intervention Reviews (MECCIR).

Introduction: The authors formed a small working group to modernize the Methodological Expectations for Campbell Collaboration Intervention Reviews (MECCIR). We reviewed comments and feedback from editors, peer reviewers of Campbell submissions, and authors; for example, that the Campbell MECCIR was long and some of the items in the reporting and conduct checklists were difficult to cross-reference. We also wanted to make the checklist more relevant for reviews of associations or risk factors and other quantitative non-intervention review types, which we welcome in Campbell. Thus, our aim was to develop a shorter, more holistic guidance and checklist of Campbell Standards, encompassing both conduct and reporting of these standards within the same checklist. Methods: Our updated Campbell Standards will be a living document. To develop this first iteration, we invited Campbell members to join a virtual working group; we sought experience in conducting Campbell systematic reviews and in conducting methods editor reviews for Campbell. We aligned the items from the MECCIR for conduct and reporting, then compared the principles of conduct that apply across review types to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-literature search extension (S) and PRISMA-2020 reporting standards. We discussed each section with the aim of developing a parsimonious checklist with explanatory guidance while avoiding losing important concepts that are relevant to all types of reviews. We held nine meetings to discuss each section in detail between September 2022 and March 2023. We circulated this initial checklist and guidance to all Campbell editors, methods editors, information specialists and co-chairs to seek their feedback. All feedback was discussed by the working group and incorporated to the Standards or, if not incorporated, a formal response was returned about the rationale for why the feedback was not incorporated. Campbell Policy: The guidance includes seven main sections with 35 items multifaceted but distinct concepts that authors must adhere to when conducting Campbell reviews. Authors and reviewers must be mindful that multiple factors need to be assessed for each item. According to the Campbell Standards, the reporting of Campbell reviews must adhere to appropriate PRISMA reporting guidelines(s) such as PRISMA-2020. How to Use: The editorial board recommends authors use the checklist during their work in formulating their protocol, carrying out their review, and reporting it. Authors will be asked to submit a completed checklist with their submission. We plan to develop an online tool to facilitate use of the form by author teams and those reviewing submissions. Providing Feedback: We invite the scientific community to provide their comments using this anonymous google form. Plan for Updating: We will update the Campbell Standards periodically in light of new evidence.

Centering Racial Health Equity in Systematic Reviews Paper 6: Engaging racially and ethnically diverse stakeholders in evidence syntheses.

OBJECTIVE: To inform methods for centering racial health equity in syntheses, we explored 1) how syntheses that assess health-related interventions and explicitly address racial health inequities have engaged interest holders and 2) guidance for engaging racially and ethnically diverse interest holders. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We systematically identified evidence syntheses (searches limited to January 1, 2020, through January 25, 2023) and guidance documents (no search date limits) for this overview. From syntheses we extracted data on engagement rationale and processes and extracted approaches suggested from guidance documents. We summarized findings qualitatively. RESULTS: Twenty-nine of the 157 (18%) eligible syntheses reported using engagement. Syntheses typically lacked robust detail on why and how to use and structure engagement and outcomes/effects of engagement, though syntheses involving Indigenous populations typically included more detail. When reported, engagement typically occurred in early and later synthesis phases. We did not identify guidance documents that specifically intended to provide guidance for engaging racially/ethnically diverse individuals in syntheses; some related guidance described broader equity considerations or engagement in general. CONCLUSION: This review highlights gaps in understanding of the use of engagement in racial health equity-focused syntheses and in guidance specifically addressing engaging racially and ethnically diverse populations. Syntheses and guidance materials we identified reported limited data addressing the whys, hows, and whats (i.e., rationale for, approaches to, resources needed and effects of) of engagement, and we lack information for understanding whether engagement makes a difference to the conduct and findings of syntheses and when and how engagement of specific populations may contribute to centering racial health equity. A more informed understanding of these issues, facilitated by prospective and retrospective descriptions of engagement of diverse interest holders, may help advance actionable guidance and reviews.

Operationalizing the GRADE-equity criterion to inform guideline recommendations: application to a medical cannabis guideline.

OBJECTIVES: Incorporating health equity considerations into guideline development often requires information beyond that gathered through traditional evidence synthesis methodology. This article outlines an operationalization plan for the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE)-equity criterion to gather and assess evidence from primary studies within systematic reviews, enhancing guideline recommendations to promote equity. We demonstrate its use in a clinical guideline on medical cannabis for chronic pain. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We reviewed GRADE guidance and resources recommended by team members regarding the use of evidence for equity considerations, drafted an operationalization plan, and iteratively refined it through team discussion and feedback and piloted it on a medicinal cannabis guideline. RESULTS: We propose a seven-step approach: 1) identify disadvantaged populations, 2) examine available data for specific populations, 3) evaluate population baseline risk for primary outcomes, 4) assess representation of these populations in primary studies, 5) appraise analyses, 6) note barriers to implementation of effective interventions for these populations, and 7) suggest supportive strategies to facilitate implementation of effective interventions. CONCLUSION: Our approach assists guideline developers in recognizing equity considerations, particularly in resource-constrained settings. Its application across various guideline topics can verify its feasibility and necessary adjustments.

Centering Racial Health Equity in Systematic Reviews Paper 2: Themes from Semi-structured Interviews.

OBJECTIVE: In the context of profound and persistent racial health inequities, we sought to understand how to define racial health equity in the context of systematic reviews and how to staff, conduct, disseminate, sustain, and evaluate systematic reviews that address racial health equity. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The study consisted of virtual, semi-structured interviews followed by structured coding and qualitative analyses using NVivo. RESULTS: Twenty-nine individuals, primarily US-based, including patients, community representatives, systematic reviewers, clinicians, guideline developers, primary researchers, and funders, participated in this study. These interest holders brought up systems of power, injustice, social determinants of health, and intersectionality when conceptualizing racial health equity. They also emphasized including community members with lived experience in review teams. They suggested making changes to systematic review scope, methods, and eligible evidence (such as adapting review methods to include racial health equity considerations in prioritizing topics for reviews, formulating key questions and searches, and specifying outcomes) and broadening evidence to include designs that address implementation and access. Interest holders noted that sustained efforts to center racial health equity in systematic reviews require resources, time, training, and demonstrating value to funders. CONCLUSION: Interest holders identified changes to the funding, staffing, conduct, dissemination, and implementation of systematic reviews to center racial health equity. Action on these steps requires clear standards for success, an evidence base to support transformative changes, and consensus among interest holders on the way forward.

Centering Racial Health Equity in Systematic Reviews Paper 5: A Methodological Overview of methods and interventions.

OBJECTIVE: We aim to 1) evaluate the methods used in systematic reviews of interventions focused on racialized populations to improve racial health equity, and 2) examine the types of interventions evaluated for advancing racial health equity in systematic reviews. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane and Campbell databases for reviews evaluating interventions focused on racialized populations to mitigate racial health inequities, published from January 2020 to January 2023. RESULTS: We analyzed 157 reviews on racialized populations. Only 22 (14%) reviews addressed racism's role in driving racial health inequities related to the review question. Eleven percent (7) of reviews considered intersectionality when conceptualizing racial inequities. Two-thirds (105, 67%) provided descriptive summaries of included studies rather than synthesizing them. Among those that quantified effect sizes, 54% (21) used biased synthesis methods like vote counting. The most common method assessed was tailoring interventions to meet the needs of racialized populations. Reviews mainly focused on assessing interventions to reduce racial disparities rather than enhancing structural opportunities for racialized populations. CONCLUSIONS: Reviews for racial health equity could be improved by enhancing methodologic quality, defining the role of racism in the question, usingreliable analytical methods, and assessing process and implementation outcomes. More focus is needed on assessing structural interventions to improve opportunities for racialized populations and prioritize these issues in political and social agendas.

PROTOCOL: Effects of social prescribing for older adults: An evidence and gap map.

Objectives This is the protocol for an evidence and gap map. The objectives are as follows: The aim of this evidence and gap map is to map the available evidence on the effectiveness of social prescribing interventions addressing a non-medical, health-related social need for older adults in any setting. Specific objectives are as follows: 1.To identify existing evidence from primary studies and systematic reviews on the effects of community-based interventions that address non-medical, health-related social needs of older adults to improve their health and wellbeing.2.To identify research evidence gaps for new high-quality primary studies and systematic reviews.3.To highlight evidence of health equity considerations from included primary studies and systematic reviews.

Centering racial health equity in systematic reviews Paper 4: A systematic review on the use of logic models and frameworks for methodological conduct of evidence synthesis.

OBJECTIVE: To identify evidence syntheses of health interventions addressing racial health equity reporting the use of equity-focused frameworks and logic models. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The search strategy included three sources; a search of three bibliographic databases to identify systematic reviews assessing interventions to improve racial health equity, semi-structured interviews with diverse group and a targeted organization website searches (e.g. NIH, USPSTF) to identify relevant logic models and frameworks. The searches were conducted between January 1, 2020, and January 25, 2023. We used a qualitative approach to identify and describe key characteristics of equity-focused logic models and frameworks used in evidence syntheses. RESULTS: Of the 153 racial health equity-focused evidence syntheses identified, 2 explicitly used logic models to describe the intervention mechanism. We identified seven existing health equity frameworks from semi-structured interviews and electronic search of key websites that were categorized by stated purpose as providing guidance for 1) research, 2) health policy, 3) digital healthcare solutions, and 4) clinical preventive services. Two out of 7 frameworks included guidance on integrating frameworks or logic models in evidence synthesis while the majority provided contextual information on how to define or consider race or racism as a structural determinant of health. CONCLUSION: There is limited use of logic models and frameworks in evidence syntheses addressing racial health equity. There is a need for more applied frameworks providing guidance for framing, conducting and interpreting findings of evidence syntheses addressing racial health equity.

Effects of guaranteed basic income interventions on poverty-related outcomes in high-income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: High-income countries offer social assistance (welfare) programs to help alleviate poverty for people with little or no income. These programs have become increasingly conditional and stringent in recent decades based on the premise that transitioning people from government support to paid work will improve their circumstances. However, many people end up with low-paying and precarious jobs that may cause more poverty because they lose benefits such as housing subsidies and health and dental insurance, while incurring job-related expenses. Conditional assistance programs are also expensive to administer and cause stigma. A guaranteed basic income (GBI) has been proposed as a more effective approach for alleviating poverty, and several experiments have been conducted in high-income countries to investigate whether GBI leads to improved outcomes compared to existing social programs. Objectives: The aim of this review was to conduct a synthesis of quantitative evidence on GBI interventions in high-income countries, to compare the effectiveness of various types of GBI versus "usual care" (including existing social assistance programs) in improving poverty-related outcomes. Search Methods: Searches of 16 academic databases were conducted in May 2022, using both keywords and database-specific controlled vocabulary, without limits or restrictions on language or date. Sources of gray literature (conference, governmental, and institutional websites) were searched in September 2022. We also searched reference lists of review articles, citations of included articles, and tables of contents of relevant journals in September 2022. Hand searching for recent publications was conducted until December 2022. Selection Criteria: We included all quantitative study designs except cross-sectional (at one timepoint), with or without control groups. We included studies in high income countries with any population and with interventions meeting our criteria for GBI: unconditional, with regular payments in cash (not in-kind) that were fixed or predictable in amount. Although two primary outcomes of interest were selected a priori (food insecurity, and poverty level assessed using official, national, or international measures), we did not screen studies on the basis of reported outcomes because it was not possible to define all potentially relevant poverty-related outcomes in advance. Data Collection and Analysis: We followed the Campbell Collaboration conduct and reporting guidelines to ensure a rigorous methodology. The risk of bias was assessed across seven domains: confounding, selection, attrition, motivation, implementation, measurement, and analysis/reporting. We conducted meta-analyses where results could be combined; otherwise, we presented the results in tables. We reported effect estimates as standard mean differences (SMDs) if the included studies reported them or provided sufficient data for us to calculate them. To compare the effects of different types of interventions, we developed a GBI typology based on the characteristics of experimental interventions as well as theoretical conceptualizations of GBI. Eligible poverty-related outcomes were classified into categories and sub-categories, to facilitate the synthesis of the individual findings. Because most of the included studies analyzed experiments conducted by other researchers, it was necessary to divide our analysis according to the "experiment" stage (i.e., design, recruitment, intervention, data collection) and the "study" stage (data analysis and reporting of results). Main Results: Our searches yielded 24,476 records from databases and 80 from other sources. After screening by title and abstract, the full texts of 294 potentially eligible articles were retrieved and screened, resulting in 27 included studies on 10 experiments. Eight of the experiments were RCTs, one included both an RCT site and a "saturation" site, and one used a repeated cross-sectional design. The duration ranged from one to 5 years. The control groups in all 10 experiments received "usual care" (i.e., no GBI intervention). The total number of participants was unknown because some of the studies did not report exact sample sizes. Of the studies that did, the smallest had 138 participants and the largest had 8019. The risk of bias assessments found "some concerns" for at least one domain in all 27 studies and "high risk" for at least one domain in 25 studies. The risk of bias was assessed as high in 21 studies due to attrition and in 22 studies due to analysis and reporting bias. To compare the interventions, we developed a classification framework of five GBI types, four of which were implemented in the experiments, and one that is used in new experiments now underway. The included studies reported 176 poverty-related outcomes, including one pre-defined primary outcome: food insecurity. The second primary outcome (poverty level assessed using official, national, or international measures) was not reported in any of the included studies. We classified the reported outcomes into seven categories: food insecurity (as a category), economic/material, physical health, psychological/mental health, social, educational, and individual choice/agency. Food insecurity was reported in two studies, both showing improvements (SMD = -0.57, 95% CI: -0.65 to -0.49, and SMD = -0.41, 95% CI: -0.57 to -0.26) which were not pooled because of different study designs. We conducted meta-analyses on four secondary outcomes that were reported in more than one study: subjective financial well-being, self-rated overall physical health, self-rated life satisfaction, and self-rated mental distress. Improvements were reported, except for overall physical health or if the intervention was similar to existing social assistance. The results for the remaining 170 outcomes, each reported in only one study, were summarized in tables by category and subcategory. Adverse effects were reported in some studies, but only for specific subgroups of participants, and not consistently, so these results may have been due to chance. Authors' Conclusions: The results of the included studies were difficult to synthesize because of the heterogeneity in the reported outcomes. This was due in part to poverty being multidimensional, so outcomes covered various aspects of life (economic, social, psychological, educational, agency, mental and physical health). Evidence from future studies would be easier to assess if outcomes were measured using more common, validated instruments. Based on our analysis of the included studies, a supplemental type of GBI (provided along with existing programs) may be effective in alleviating poverty-related outcomes. This approach may also be safer than a wholesale reform of existing social assistance approaches, which could have unintended consequences.

Motivations for investigating health inequities in observational epidemiology: a content analysis of 320 studies.

OBJECTIVES: To enhance equity in clinical and epidemiological research, it is crucial to understand researcher motivations for conducting equity-relevant studies. Therefore, we evaluated author motivations in a randomly selected sample of equity-relevant observational studies published during the COVID-19 pandemic. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched MEDLINE for studies from 2020 to 2022, resulting in 16,828 references. We randomly selected 320 studies purposefully sampled across income setting (high vs low-middle-income), COVID-19 topic (vs non-COVID-19), and focus on populations experiencing inequities. Of those, 206 explicitly mentioned motivations which we analyzed thematically. We used discourse analysis to investigate the reasons behind emerging motivations. RESULTS: We identified the following motivations: (1) examining health disparities, (2) tackling social determinants to improve access, and (3) addressing knowledge gaps in health equity. Discourse analysis showed motivations stem from commitments to social justice and recognizing the importance of highlighting it in research. Other discourses included aspiring to improve health-care efficiency, wanting to understand cause-effect relationships, and seeking to contribute to an equitable evidence base. CONCLUSION: Understanding researchers' motivations for assessing health equity can aid in developing guidance that tailors to their needs. We will consider these motivations in developing and sharing equity guidance to better meet researchers' needs.

Reporting of equity in observational epidemiology: A methodological review.

Background: Observational studies can inform how we understand and address persisting health inequities through the collection, reporting and analysis of health equity factors. However, the extent to which the analysis and reporting of equity-relevant aspects in observational research are generally unknown. Thus, we aimed to systematically evaluate how equity-relevant observational studies reported equity considerations in the study design and analyses. Methods: We searched MEDLINE for health equity-relevant observational studies from January 2020 to March 2022, resulting in 16 828 articles. We randomly selected 320 studies, ensuring a balance in focus on populations experiencing inequities, country income settings, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) topic. We extracted information on study design and analysis methods. Results: The bulk of the studies were conducted in North America (n = 95, 30%), followed by Europe and Central Asia (n = 55, 17%). Half of the studies (n = 171, 53%) addressed general health and well-being, while 49 (15%) focused on mental health conditions. Two-thirds of the studies (n = 220, 69%) were cross-sectional. Eight (3%) engaged with populations experiencing inequities, while 22 (29%) adapted recruitment methods to reach these populations. Further, 67 studies (21%) examined interaction effects primarily related to race or ethnicity (48%). Two-thirds of the studies (72%) adjusted for characteristics associated with inequities, and 18 studies (6%) used flow diagrams to depict how populations experiencing inequities progressed throughout the studies. Conclusions: Despite over 80% of the equity-focused observational studies providing a rationale for a focus on health equity, reporting of study design features relevant to health equity ranged from 0-95%, with over half of the items reported by less than one-quarter of studies. This methodological study is a baseline assessment to inform the development of an equity-focussed reporting guideline for observational studies as an extension of the well-known Strengthening Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline.

The 'what' and 'how' of screening for social needs in healthcare settings: a scoping review.

Background: Adverse social determinants of health give rise to individual-level social needs that have the potential to negatively impact health. Screening patients to identify unmet social needs is becoming more widespread. A review of the content of currently available screening tools is warranted. The aim of this scoping review was to determine what social needs categories are included in published Social Needs Screening Tools that have been developed for use in primary care settings, and how these social needs are screened. Methods: We pre-registered the study on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/dqan2/). We searched MEDLINE and Embase from 01/01/2010 to 3/05/2022 to identify eligible studies reporting tools designed for use in primary healthcare settings. Two reviewers independently screened studies, a single reviewer extracted data. We summarised the characteristics of included studies descriptively and calculated the number of studies that collected data relevant to specific social needs categories. We identified sub-categories to classify the types of questions relevant to each of the main categories. Results: We identified 420 unique citations, and 27 were included. Nine additional studies were retrieved by searching for tools that were used or referred to in excluded studies. Questions relating to food insecurity and the physical environment in which a person lives were the most frequently included items (92-94% of tools), followed by questions relating to economic stability and aspects of social and community context (81%). Seventy-five percent of the screening tools included items that evaluated five or more social needs categories (mean 6.5; standard deviation 1.75). One study reported that the tool had been 'validated'; 16 reported 'partial' validation; 12 reported that the tool was 'not validated' and seven studies did not report validation processes or outcomes.

Effectiveness of interventions to address different types of vulnerabilities in community-dwelling older adults: An umbrella review.

Background: Frailty, social isolation, loneliness, and poverty may render older adults vulnerable to social or health stressors. It is imperative to identify effective interventions to address them especially in the context of COVID-19 pandemic. Objective: To identify effective community-based interventions to address frailty, social isolation, loneliness, and poverty among community-dwelling older adults. Design: Umbrella review. Data Source: We systematically searched PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, EBM-Reviews, CINAHL via EBSCO, and APA PsycInfo via Ovid from January 2009 to December 2022. Eligibility Criteria: We included systematic reviews or quantitative reviews of non-pharmacologic interventions targeting community-dwelling older adults. Data Selection Extraction and Management: Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts, performed data extraction and appraised the methodological quality of the reviews. We used a narrative synthesis approach to summarize and interpret the findings. We assessed the methodological quality of the studies using AMSTAR 2.0 tool. Results: We identified 27 reviews incorporating 372 unique primary studies that met our inclusion criteria. Ten of the reviews included studies conducted in low-middle-income countries. Twelve reviews (46%, 12/26) included interventions that addressed frailty. Seventeen reviews (65%, 17/26) included interventions that addressed either social isolation or loneliness. Eighteen reviews included studies with single component interventions, while 23 reviews included studies with multi-component interventions. Interventions including protein supplementation combined with physical activity may improve outcomes including frailty status, grip strength, and body weight. Physical activity alone or in combination with diet may prevent frailty. Additionally, physical activity may improve social functioning and interventions using digital technologies may decrease social isolation and loneliness. We did not find any review of interventions addressing poverty among older adults. We also noted that few reviews addressed multiple vulnerabilities within the same study, specifically addressed vulnerability among ethnic and sexual minority groups, or examined interventions that engaged communities and adapted programs to local needs. Conclusion: Evidence from reviews support diets, physical activity, and digital technologies to improve frailty, social isolation or loneliness. However, interventions examined were primarily conducted under optimal conditions. There is a need for further interventions in community settings and conducted under real world settings in older adults living with multiple vulnerabilities.

Using PROGRESS-plus to identify current approaches to the collection and reporting of equity-relevant data: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were to identify what and how data relating to the social determinants of health are collected and reported in equity-relevant studies and map these data to the PROGRESS-Plus framework. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We performed a scoping review. We ran two systematic searches of MEDLINE and Embase for equity-relevant studies published during 2021. We included studies in any language without limitations to participant characteristics. Included studies were required to have collected and reported at least two participant variables relevant to evaluating individual-level social determinants of health. We applied the PROGRESS-Plus framework to identify and organize these data. RESULTS: We extracted data from 200 equity-relevant studies, providing 962 items defined by PROGRESS-Plus. A median of 4 (interquartile range = 2) PROGRESS-Plus items were reported in the included studies. 92% of studies reported age; 78% reported sex/gender; 65% reported educational attainment; 49% reported socioeconomic status; 45% reported race; 44% reported social capital; 33% reported occupation; 14% reported place and 9% reported religion. CONCLUSION: Our synthesis demonstrated that researchers currently collect a limited range of equity-relevant data, but usefully provides a range of examples spanning PROGRESS-Plus to inform the development of improved, standardized practices.