From Treatment to Recovery: Gynecological Survivors' and Caregivers' Perspectives About the Usability of an Educational Resource.

The objective of this study was to understand gynecological cancer (GC) survivors' and their informal caregivers' perceptions about the usability of an educational resource to support their transition from primary cancer treatment into surveillance and/or recovery. After developing an empirical- and experiential-informed educational resource, we used a semi-structured questioning process to understand GC survivors and their caregivers' perceptions about its usability. Data were collected via online focus groups or 1:1 interviews that were audio recorded and transcribed. We used thematic analysis to analyze the data. Ten participants who were survivors or informal caregivers of cervical, ovarian, or uterine/endometrial cancer participated in two rounds of data collection. We grouped qualitative data into two themes: (1) reputable, relevant, and accessible education reduces uncertainty and promotes connection, and (2) individualized delivery of education provided by trusted cancer clinicians. The transition from treatment to surveillance is a challenging time for which reputable, relevant, and accessible educational resources are useful to facilitate an understanding about and self-management of survivorship-related concerns. Survivors and caregivers look to clinicians to provide reputable education to address their needs. This education should be diverse in content and referred to repeatedly throughout the cancer trajectory.

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.

Understanding how and under what circumstances decision coaching works for people making healthcare decisions: a realist review.

BACKGROUND: Decision coaching is non-directive support delivered by a trained healthcare provider to help people prepare to actively participate in making healthcare decisions. This study aimed to understand how and under what circumstances decision coaching works for people making healthcare decisions. METHODS: We followed the realist review methodology for this study. This study was built on a Cochrane systematic review of the effectiveness of decision coaching interventions for people facing healthcare decisions. It involved six iterative steps: (1) develop the initial program theory; (2) search for evidence; (3) select, appraise, and prioritize studies; (4) extract and organize data; (5) synthesize evidence; and (6) consult stakeholders and draw conclusions. RESULTS: We developed an initial program theory based on decision coaching theories and stakeholder feedback. Of the 2594 citations screened, we prioritized 27 papers for synthesis based on their relevance rating. To refine the program theory, we identified 12 context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) configurations. Essential mechanisms for decision coaching to be initiated include decision coaches', patients', and clinicians' commitments to patients' involvement in decision making and decision coaches' knowledge and skills (four CMOs). CMOs during decision coaching are related to the patient (i.e., willing to confide, perceiving their decisional needs are recognized, acquiring knowledge, feeling supported), and the patient-decision coach interaction (i.e., exchanging information, sharing a common understanding of patient's values) (five CMOs). After decision coaching, the patient's progress in making or implementing a values-based preferred decision can be facilitated by the decision coach's advocacy for the patient, and the patient's deliberation upon options (two CMOs). Leadership support enables decision coaches to have access to essential resources to fulfill their role (one CMOs). DISCUSSION: In the refined program theory, decision coaching works when there is strong leadership support and commitment from decision coaches, clinicians, and patients. Decision coaches need to be capable in coaching, encourage patients' participation, build a trusting relationship with patients, and act as a liaison between patients and clinicians to facilitate patients' progress in making or implementing an informed values-based preferred option. More empirical studies, especially qualitative and process evaluation studies, are needed to further refine the program theory.

Decision coaching for people making healthcare decisions.

BACKGROUND: Decision coaching is non-directive support delivered by a healthcare provider to help patients prepare to actively participate in making a health decision. 'Healthcare providers' are considered to be all people who are engaged in actions whose primary intent is to protect and improve health (e.g. nurses, doctors, pharmacists, social workers, health support workers such as peer health workers). Little is known about the effectiveness of decision coaching. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of decision coaching (I) for people facing healthcare decisions for themselves or a family member (P) compared to (C) usual care or evidence-based intervention only, on outcomes (O) related to preparation for decision making, decisional needs and potential adverse effects. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Library (Wiley), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (Ebsco), Nursing and Allied Health Source (ProQuest), and Web of Science from database inception to June 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where the intervention was provided to adults or children preparing to make a treatment or screening healthcare decision for themselves or a family member. Decision coaching was defined as: a) delivered individually by a healthcare provider who is trained or using a protocol; and b) providing non-directive support and preparing an adult or child to participate in a healthcare decision. Comparisons included usual care or an alternate intervention. There were no language restrictions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened citations, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data on characteristics of the intervention(s) and outcomes. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion to reach consensus. We used the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) as the measures of treatment effect and, where possible, synthesised results using a random-effects model. If more than one study measured the same outcome using different tools, we used a random-effects model to calculate the standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI. We presented outcomes in summary of findings tables and applied GRADE methods to rate the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: Out of 12,984 citations screened, we included 28 studies of decision coaching interventions alone or in combination with evidence-based information, involving 5509 adult participants (aged 18 to 85 years; 64% female, 52% white, 33% African-American/Black; 68% post-secondary education). The studies evaluated decision coaching used for a range of healthcare decisions (e.g. treatment decisions for cancer, menopause, mental illness, advancing kidney disease; screening decisions for cancer, genetic testing). Four of the 28 studies included three comparator arms.  For decision coaching compared with usual care (n = 4 studies), we are uncertain if decision coaching compared with usual care improves any outcomes (i.e. preparation for decision making, decision self-confidence, knowledge, decision regret, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low.  For decision coaching compared with evidence-based information only (n = 4 studies), there is low certainty-evidence that participants exposed to decision coaching may have little or no change in knowledge (SMD -0.23, 95% CI: -0.50 to 0.04; 3 studies, 406 participants). There is low certainty-evidence that participants exposed to decision coaching may have little or no change in anxiety, compared with evidence-based information. We are uncertain if decision coaching compared with evidence-based information improves other outcomes (i.e. decision self-confidence, feeling uninformed) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. For decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with usual care (n = 17 studies), there is low certainty-evidence that participants may have improved knowledge (SMD 9.3, 95% CI: 6.6 to 12.1; 5 studies, 1073 participants). We are uncertain if decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with usual care improves other outcomes (i.e. preparation for decision making, decision self-confidence, feeling uninformed, unclear values, feeling unsupported, decision regret, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. For decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with evidence-based information only (n = 7 studies), we are uncertain if decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with evidence-based information only improves any outcomes (i.e. feeling uninformed, unclear values, feeling unsupported, knowledge, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Decision coaching may improve participants' knowledge when used with evidence-based information. Our findings do not indicate any significant adverse effects (e.g. decision regret, anxiety) with the use of decision coaching. It is not possible to establish strong conclusions for other outcomes. It is unclear if decision coaching always needs to be paired with evidence-informed information. Further research is needed to establish the effectiveness of decision coaching for a broader range of outcomes.

Experiences of Inuit in Canada who travel from remote settings for cancer care and impacts on decision making.

BACKGROUND: Inuit experience the highest cancer mortality rates from lung cancer in the world with increasing rates of other cancers in addition to other significant health burdens. Inuit who live in remote areas must often travel thousands of kilometers to large urban centres in southern Canada and negotiate complex and sometimes unwelcoming health care systems. There is an urgent need to improve Inuit access to and use of health care. Our study objective was to understand the experiences of Inuit in Canada who travel from a remote to an urban setting for cancer care, and the impacts on their opportunities to participate in decisions during their journey to receive cancer care. METHODS: We are an interdisciplinary team of Steering Committee and researcher partners ("the team") from Inuit-led and/or -specific organizations that span Nunavut and the Ontario cancer health systems. Guided by Inuit societal values, we used an integrated knowledge translation (KT) approach with qualitative methods. We conducted semi-structured interviews with Inuit participants and used process mapping and thematic analysis. RESULTS: We mapped the journey to receive cancer care and related the findings of client (n = 8) and medical escort (n = 6) ("participant") interviews in four themes: 1) It is hard to take part in decisions about getting health care; 2) No one explains the decisions you will need to make; 3) There is a duty to make decisions that support family and community; 4) The lack of knowledge impacts opportunities to engage in decision making. Participants described themselves as directed, with little or no support, and seeking opportunities to collaborate with others on the journey to receive cancer care. CONCLUSIONS: We describe the journey to receive cancer care as a "decision chain" which can be described as a series of events that lead to receiving cancer care. We identify points in the decision chain that could better prepare Inuit to participate in decisions related to their cancer care. We propose that there are opportunities to build further health care system capacity to support Inuit and enable their participation in decisions related to their cancer care while upholding and incorporating Inuit knowledge.

Engaging Patients and Other Non-Researchers in Health Research: Defining Research Engagement.

With the increase in patient and consumer activism through the late twentieth century and into this century, patient roles in research evolved into a new model of research engagement, with patients serving as active advisors and co-leading or leading clinical research. By requiring active engagement of patients and other stakeholders, several government research funders have advanced this model, particularly in Canada, the United States (US), United Kingdom (UK), and Australia. A consortium of individuals from these countries formed a Multi-Stakeholder Engagement (MuSE) consortium to examine critical issues in engaged research, establish consensus on definitions, and provide guidance for the field, beginning with an overview of how to involve stakeholders in health research (Concannon et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34(3):458-463) and continuing here with an examination of definitions of research engagement. The political and advocacy roots of engaged research are reflected in definitions. Engagement is conceptualized with reference to research project goals, from informing specific clinical decisions to informing health-system level decisions. Political and cultural differences across countries are evident. Some of these government funders focus on empirical rather than ethical rationales. In countries with centralized health technology assessment, the link between societal values and engaged research is explicit. Ethical rationales for engagement are explicit in most of the published literature on research engagement. Harmonization of definitions is recommended so that research engagement elements, methods, and outcomes and impacts can be clearly examined and understood, and so that the field of research engagement can proceed from a clear conceptual foundation. Specific recommendations for terminology definitions are provided. Placing engaged research on a continuum from specific clinical decisions to more global public and social justice concerns clarifies the type of engaged research, supports appropriate comparisons, and improves the rigor of engaged research methods. The results help identify knowledge gaps in this growing field.

Equity as the fourth 'E' in the '3 E's' approach to injury prevention.

The education, engineering and enforcement (3 E's) approach to injury prevention is grounded in assumptions that it is effective for everyone; however, evidence demonstrates that it fails to consider opportunities for all populations to experience safe and injury-free lives. In this way, the 3 E's approach does not support health equity in the injury prevention field. In this brief report, we argue that a fourth E, equity, must also be used with the 3 E's approach to injury prevention.

A review and synthesis of frameworks for engagement in health research to identify concepts of knowledge user engagement.

BACKGROUND: Engaging those who influence, administer and/or who are active users ("knowledge users") of health care systems, as co-producers of health research, can help to ensure that research products will better address real world needs. Our aim was to identify and review frameworks of knowledge user engagement in health research in a systematic manner, and to describe the concepts comprising these frameworks. METHODS: An international team sharing a common interest in knowledge user engagement in health research used a consensus-building process to: 1) agree upon criteria to identify articles, 2) screen articles to identify existing frameworks, 3) extract, analyze data, and 4) synthesize and report the concepts of knowledge user engagement described in health research frameworks. We utilized the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute Engagement in Health Research Literature Explorer (PCORI Explorer) as a source of articles related to engagement in health research. The search includes articles from May 1995 to December 2017. RESULTS: We identified 54 articles about frameworks for knowledge user engagement in health research and report on 15 concepts. The average number of concepts reported in the 54 articles is n = 7, and ranges from n = 1 to n = 13 concepts. The most commonly reported concepts are: knowledge user - prepare, support (n = 44), relational process (n = 39), research agenda (n = 38). The least commonly reported concepts are: methodology (n = 8), methods (n = 10) and analysis (n = 18). In a comparison of articles that report how research was done (n = 26) versus how research should be done (n = 28), articles about how research was done report concepts more often and have a higher average number of concepts (n = 8 of 15) in comparison to articles about how research should be done (n = 6 of 15). The exception is the concept "evaluate" and that is more often reported in articles that describe how research should be done. CONCLUSIONS: We propose that research teams 1) consider engagement with the 15 concepts as fluid, and 2) consider a form of partnered negotiation that takes place through all phases of research to identify and use concepts appropriate to their team needs. There is a need for further work to understand concepts for knowledge user engagement.

Considerations and guidance in designing equity-relevant clinical trials.

Health research has documented disparities in health and health outcomes within and between populations. When these disparities are unfair and avoidable they may be referred to as health inequities. Few trials attend to factors related to health inequities, and there is limited understanding about how to build consideration of health inequities into trials. Due consideration of health inequities is important to inform the design, conduct and reporting of trials so that research can build evidence to more effectively address health inequities and importantly, ensure that inequities are not aggravated. In this paper, we discuss approaches to integrating health equity-considerations in randomized trials by using the PROGRESS Plus framework (Place of residence, Race/ethnicity/culture/language, Occupation, Gender, Religion, Education, Socio-economic status, Social capital and "Plus" that includes other context specific factors) and cover: (i) formulation of research questions, (ii) two specific scenarios relevant to trials about health equity and (iii) describe how the PROGRESS Plus characteristics may influence trial design, conduct and analyses. This guidance is intended to support trialists designing equity-relevant trials and lead to better design, conduct, analyses and reporting, by addressing two main issues: how to avoid aggravating inequity among research participants and how to produce information that is useful to decision-makers who are concerned with health inequities.

Cultural adaptation of a shared decision making tool with Aboriginal women: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making (SDM) may narrow health equity gaps experienced by Aboriginal women. SDM tools such as patient decision aids can facilitate SDM between the client and health care providers; SDM tools for use in Western health care settings have not yet been developed for and with Aboriginal populations. This study describes the adaptation and usability testing of a SDM tool, the Ottawa Personal Decision Guide (OPDG), to support decision making by Aboriginal women. METHODS: An interpretive descriptive qualitative study was structured by the Ottawa Decision Support Framework and used a postcolonial theoretical lens. An advisory group was established with representation from the Aboriginal community and used a mutually agreed-upon ethical framework. Eligible participants were Aboriginal women at Minwaashin Lodge. First, the OPDG was discussed in focus groups using a semi-structured interview guide. Then, individual usability interviews were conducted using a semi-structured interview guide with decision coaching. Iterative adaptations to the OPDG were made during focus groups and usability interviews until saturation was reached. Transcripts were coded using thematic analysis and themes confirmed in collaboration with an advisory group. RESULTS: Aboriginal women 20 to 60 years of age and self-identifying as First Nations, Métis, or Inuit participated in two focus groups (n = 13) or usability interviews (n = 6). Seven themes were developed that either reflected or affirmed OPDG adaptions: 1) "This paper makes it hard for me to show that I am capable of making decisions"; 2) "I am responsible for my decisions"; 3) "My past and current experiences affect the way I make decisions"; 4) "People need to talk with people"; 5) "I need to fully participate in making my decisions"; 6) "I need to explore my decision in a meaningful way"; 7) "I need respect for my traditional learning and communication style". CONCLUSIONS: Adaptations resulted in a culturally adapted version of the OPDG that better met the needs of Aboriginal women participants and was more accessible with respect to health literacy assumptions. Decision coaching was identified as required to enhance engagement in the decision making process and using the adapted OPDG as a talking guide.

Co-production of a systematic review on decision coaching: a mixed methods case study within a review.

BACKGROUND: Co-production is a collaborative approach to prepare, plan, conduct, and apply research with those who will use or be impacted by research (knowledge users). Our team of knowledge users and researchers sought to conduct and evaluate co-production of a systematic review on decision coaching. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods case study within a review to describe team co-production of a systematic review. We used the Collaborative Research Framework to support an integrated knowledge translation approach to guide a team through the steps in co-production of a systematic review. The team agreed to conduct self-study as a study within a review to learn from belonging to a co-production research team. A core group that includes a patient partner developed and conducted the study within a review. Data sources were surveys and documents. The study coordinator administered surveys to determine participant preferred and actual levels of engagement, experiences, and perceptions. We included frequency counts, content, and document analysis. RESULTS: We describe co-production of a systematic review. Of 17 team members, 14 (82%) agreed to study participation and of those 12 (86%) provided data pre- and post-systematic review. Most participants identified as women (n = 9, 75.0%), researchers (n = 7, 58%), trainees (n = 4, 33%), and/or clinicians (n = 2, 17%) with two patient/caregiver partners (17%). The team self-organized study governance with an executive and Steering Committee and agreed on research co-production actions and strategies. Satisfaction for engagement in the 11 systematic review steps ranged from 75 to 92%, with one participant who did not respond to any of the questions (8%) for all. Participants reported positive experiences with team communication processes (n = 12, 100%), collaboration (n = 12, 100%), and negotiation (n = 10-12, 83-100%). Participants perceived the systematic review as co-produced (n = 12, 100%) with collaborative (n = 8, 67%) and engagement activities to characterize co-production (n = 8, 67%). Participants indicated that they would not change the co-production approach (n = 8, 66%). Five participants (42%) reported team logistics challenges and four (33%) were unaware of challenges. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that it is feasible to use an integrated knowledge translation approach to conduct a systematic review. We demonstrate the importance of a relational approach to research co-production, and that it is essential to plan and actively support team engagement in the research lifecycle.

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.

Consensus on the definitions and descriptions of the domains of the OMERACT Core Outcome Set for shared decision making interventions in rheumatology trials.

OBJECTIVE: To gain consensus on the definitions and descriptions of the domains of the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) core domain set for rheumatology trials evaluating shared decision making (SDM) interventions. METHODS: Following the OMERACT Handbook methods, our Working Group (WG), comprised of 90 members, including 17 patient research partners (PRPs) and 73 clinicians and researchers, had six virtual meetings in addition to email exchanges to develop draft definitions and descriptions. The WG then conducted an international survey of its members to gain consensus on the definitions and descriptions. Finally, the WG members had virtual meetings and e-mail exchanges to review survey results and finalize names, definitions and descriptions of the domains. RESULTS: WG members contributed to developing the definitions. Fifty-two members representing four continents and 13 countries completed the survey, including 15 PRPs, 33 clinicians and 37 researchers. PRPs and clinicians/researchers agreed with all definitions and descriptions with agreements ranging from 87% to 100%. Respondents suggested wording changes to the names, definitions and descriptions to better reflect the domains. Discussions led to further simplification and clarification to address common questions/concerns about the domains. CONCLUSION: Our WG reached consensus on the definitions and descriptions of the domains of the core domain set for rheumatology trials of SDM interventions. This step is crucial to understand each domain and provides the foundation to identify instruments to measure each domain for inclusion in the Core Outcome Measurement Set. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The current study provides consensus-based definitions and descriptions for the domains of the OMERACT core domain set for shared decision making interventions from patients/caregivers, clinicians and researchers. This is a crucial step to understand each domain and provides the foundation to identify instruments to measure each domain for inclusion in the Core Outcome Measurement Set for trials of SDM interventions.

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.

OMERACT Core outcome measurement set for shared decision making in rheumatic and musculoskeletal conditions: a scoping review to identify candidate instruments.

OBJECTIVES: Shared decision making (SDM) is a central tenet in rheumatic and musculoskeletal care. The lack of standardization regarding SDM instruments and outcomes in clinical trials threatens the comparative effectiveness of interventions. The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) SDM Working Group is developing a Core Outcome Set for trials of SDM interventions in rheumatology and musculoskeletal health. The working group reached consensus on a Core Outcome Domain Set in 2020. The next step is to develop a Core Outcome Measurement Set through the OMERACT Filter 2.2. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review (PRISMA-ScR) to identify candidate instruments for the OMERACT Filter 2.2 We systematically reviewed five databases (Ovid MEDLINE®, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and Web of Science). An information specialist designed search strategies to identify all measurement instruments used in SDM studies in adults or children living with rheumatic or musculoskeletal diseases or their important others. Paired reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full text articles. We extracted characteristics of all candidate instruments (e.g., measured construct, measurement properties). We classified candidate instruments and summarized evidence gaps with an adapted version of the Summary of Measurement Properties (SOMP) table. RESULTS: We found 14,464 citations, read 239 full text articles, and included 99 eligible studies. We identified 220 potential candidate instruments. The five most used measurement instruments were the Decisional Conflict Scale (traditional and low literacy versions) (n=38), the Hip/Knee-Decision Quality Instrument (n=20), the Decision Regret Scale (n=9), the Preparation for Decision Making Scale (n=8), and the CollaboRATE (n=8). Only 44 candidate instruments (20%) had any measurement properties reported by the included studies. Of these instruments, only 57% matched with at least one of the 7-criteria adapted SOMP table. CONCLUSION: We identified 220 candidate instruments used in the SDM literature amongst people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases. Our classification of instruments showed evidence gaps and inconsistent reporting of measurement properties. The next steps for the OMERACT SDM Working Group are to match candidate instruments with Core Domains, assess feasibility and review validation studies of measurement instruments in rheumatic diseases or other conditions. Development and validation of new instruments may be required for some Core Domains.

Interventions for Indigenous Peoples making health decisions: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making facilitates collaboration between patients and health care providers for informed health decisions. Our review identified interventions to support Indigenous Peoples making health decisions. The objectives were to synthesize evidence and identify factors that impact the use of shared decision making interventions. METHODS: An Inuit and non-Inuit team of service providers and academic researchers used an integrated knowledge translation approach with framework synthesis to coproduce a systematic review. We developed a conceptual framework to organize and describe the shared decision making processes and guide identification of studies that describe interventions to support Indigenous Peoples making health decisions. We conducted a comprehensive search of electronic databases from September 2012 to March 2022, with a grey literature search. Two independent team members screened and quality appraised included studies for strengths and relevance of studies' contributions to shared decision making and Indigenous self-determination. Findings were analyzed descriptively in relation to the conceptual framework and reported using guidelines to ensure transparency and completeness in reporting and for equity-oriented systematic reviews. RESULTS: Of 5068 citations screened, nine studies reported in ten publications were eligible for inclusion. We categorized the studies into clusters identified as: those inclusive of Indigenous knowledges and governance ("Indigenous-oriented")(n = 6); and those based on Western academic knowledge and governance ("Western-oriented")(n = 3). The studies were found to be of variable quality for contributions to shared decision making and self-determination, with Indigenous-oriented studies of higher quality overall than Western-oriented studies. Four themes are reflected in an updated conceptual framework: 1) where shared decision making takes place impacts decision making opportunities, 2) little is known about the characteristics of health care providers who engage in shared decision making processes, 3) community is a partner in shared decision making, 4) the shared decision making process involves trust-building. CONCLUSIONS: There are few studies that report on and evaluate shared decision making interventions with Indigenous Peoples. Overall, Indigenous-oriented studies sought to make health care systems more amenable to shared decision making for Indigenous Peoples, while Western-oriented studies distanced shared decision making from the health care settings. Further studies that are solutions-focused and support Indigenous self-determination are needed.

Cohort Trajectories by Age and Gender for Informal Caregiving in Europe Adjusted for Sociodemographic Changes, 2004 and 2015.

OBJECTIVES: We present a dynamic view of gender patterns in informal caregiving across Europe in a context of sociodemographic transformations. We aim to answer the following research questions: (a) has the gender gap in informal caregiving changed; (b) if so, is this due to changes among women and/or men; and (c) has the gender care gap changed differently across care regimes? METHODS: Multilevel growth curve models are applied to gendered trajectories of informal caregiving of a panel sample of 50+ Europeans, grouped into 5-year cohorts and followed across 5 waves of the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe survey, stratified by sex and adjusted for several covariates. RESULTS: For men in cohorts born more recently, there is a decrease in the prevalence of informal care outside the household, whereas cohort trajectories for women are mostly stable. Prevalence of care inside the household has increased for later-born cohorts for all without discernible changes to the gender care gap. Gender care gaps overall widened among later-born cohorts in the Continental cluster, whereas they remained constant in Southern Europe, and narrowed in the Nordic cluster. DISCUSSION: We discuss the cohort effects found in the context of gender differences in employment and care around retirement age, as well as possible demographic explanations for these. The shift from care outside to inside the household, where it mostly consists of spousal care, may require different policies to support carers, whose age profile and possible care burden seem to be increasing.

Protocol for the development of guidance for collaborator and partner engagement in health care evidence syntheses.

BACKGROUND: Involving collaborators and partners in research may increase relevance and uptake, while reducing health and social inequities. Collaborators and partners include people and groups interested in health research: health care providers, patients and caregivers, payers of health research, payers of health services, publishers, policymakers, researchers, product makers, program managers, and the public. Evidence syntheses inform decisions about health care services, treatments, and practice, which ultimately affect health outcomes. Our objectives are to: A. Identify, map, and synthesize qualitative and quantitative findings related to engagement in evidence syntheses B. Explore how engagement in evidence synthesis promotes health equity C. Develop equity-oriented guidance on methods for conducting, evaluating, and reporting engagement in evidence syntheses METHODS: Our diverse, international team will develop guidance for engagement with collaborators and partners throughout multiple sequential steps using an integrated knowledge translation approach: 1. Reviews. We will co-produce 1 scoping review, 3 systematic reviews and 1 evidence map focusing on (a) methods, (b) barriers and facilitators, (c) conflict of interest considerations, (d) impacts, and (e) equity considerations of engagement in evidence synthesis. 2. Methods study, interviews, and survey. We will contextualise the findings of step 1 by assessing a sample of evidence syntheses reporting on engagement with collaborators and partners and through conducting interviews with collaborators and partners who have been involved in producing evidence syntheses. We will use these findings to develop draft guidance checklists and will assess agreement with each item through an international survey. 3. CONSENSUS: The guidance checklists will be co-produced and finalised at a consensus meeting with collaborators and partners. 4. DISSEMINATION: We will develop a dissemination plan with our collaborators and partners and work collaboratively to improve adoption of our guidance by key organizations. CONCLUSION: Our international team will develop guidance for collaborator and partner engagement in health care evidence syntheses. Incorporating partnership values and expectations may result in better uptake, potentially reducing health inequities.

A scoping review establishes need for consensus guidance on reporting health equity in observational studies.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the support from the available guidance on reporting of health equity in research for our candidate items and to identify additional items for the Strengthening Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology-Equity extension. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a scoping review by searching Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane Methodology Register, LILACS, and Caribbean Center on Health Sciences Information up to January 2022. We also searched reference lists and gray literature for additional resources. We included guidance and assessments (hereafter termed "resources") related to conduct and/or reporting for any type of health research with or about people experiencing health inequity. RESULTS: We included 34 resources, which supported one or more candidate items or contributed to new items about health equity reporting in observational research. Each candidate item was supported by a median of six (range: 1-15) resources. In addition, 12 resources suggested 13 new items, such as "report the background of investigators". CONCLUSION: Existing resources for reporting health equity in observational studies aligned with our interim checklist of candidate items. We also identified additional items that will be considered in the development of a consensus-based and evidence-based guideline for reporting health equity in observational studies.