Prioritising Cochrane reviews to be updated with health equity focus.

BACKGROUND: The prioritisation of updating published systematic reviews of interventions is vital to prevent research waste and ensure relevance to stakeholders. The consideration of health equity in reviews is also important to ensure interventions will not exacerbate the existing inequities of the disadvantaged if universally implemented. This study aimed to pilot a priority setting exercise based on systematic reviews of interventions published in the Cochrane Library, to identify and prioritise reviews to be updated with a focus on health equity. METHODS: We conducted a priority setting exercise with a group of 13 international stakeholders. We identified Cochrane reviews of interventions that showed a reduction in mortality, had at least one Summary of Findings table and that focused on one of 42 conditions with a high global burden of disease from the 2019 WHO Global Burden of Disease report. This included 21 conditions used as indicators of success of the United Nations Universal Health Coverage in attaining the Sustainable Development Goals. Stakeholders prioritised reviews that were relevant to disadvantaged populations, or to characteristics of potential disadvantage within the general population. RESULTS: After searching for Cochrane reviews of interventions within 42 conditions, we identified 359 reviews that assessed mortality and included at least one Summary of Findings table. These pertained to 29 of the 42 conditions; 13 priority conditions had no reviews with the outcome mortality. Reducing the list to only reviews showing a clinically important reduction in mortality left 33 reviews. Stakeholders ranked these reviews in order of priority to be updated with a focus on health equity. CONCLUSIONS: This project developed and implemented a methodology to set priorities for updating systematic reviews spanning multiple health topics with a health equity focus. It prioritised reviews that reduce overall mortality, are relevant to disadvantaged populations, and focus on conditions with a high global burden of disease. This approach to the prioritisation of systematic reviews of interventions that reduce mortality provides a template that can be extended to reducing morbidity, and the combination of mortality and morbidity as represented in Disability-Adjusted Life Years and Quality-Adjusted Life Years.

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.

Factors to Consider During Identification and Invitation of Individuals in a Multi-stakeholder Research Partnership.

BACKGROUND: Health research teams increasingly partner with stakeholders to produce research that is relevant, accessible, and widely used. Previous work has covered stakeholder group identification. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop factors for health research teams to consider during identification and invitation of individual representatives in a multi-stakeholder research partnership, with the aim of forming equitable and informed teams. DESIGN: Consensus development. PARTICIPANTS: We involved 16 stakeholders from the international Multi-Stakeholder Engagement (MuSE) Consortium, including patients and the public, providers, payers of health services/purchasers, policy makers, programme managers, peer review editors, and principal investigators. APPROACH: We engaged stakeholders in factor development and as co-authors of this manuscript. Using a modified Delphi approach, we gathered stakeholder views concerning a preliminary list of 18 factors. Over two feedback rounds, using qualitative and quantitative analysis, we concentrated these into ten factors. KEY RESULTS: We present seven highly desirable factors: 'expertise or experience', 'ability and willingness to represent the stakeholder group', 'inclusivity (equity, diversity and intersectionality)', 'communication skills', 'commitment and time capacity', 'financial and non-financial relationships and activities, and conflict of interest', 'training support and funding needs'. Additionally, three factors are desirable: 'influence', 'research relevant values', 'previous stakeholder engagement'. CONCLUSIONS: We present factors for research teams to consider during identification and invitation of individual representatives in a multi-stakeholder research partnership. Policy makers and guideline developers may benefit from considering the factors in stakeholder identification and invitation. Research funders may consider stipulating consideration of the factors in funding applications. We outline how these factors can be implemented and exemplify how their use has the potential to improve the quality and relevancy of health research.

How effects on health equity are assessed in systematic reviews of interventions.

BACKGROUND: Enhancing health equity is endorsed in the Sustainable Development Goals. The failure of systematic reviews to consider potential differences in effects across equity factors is cited by decision-makers as a limitation to their ability to inform policy and program decisions.  OBJECTIVES: To explore what methods systematic reviewers use to consider health equity in systematic reviews of effectiveness. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to 26 February 2021: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Methodology Register, CINAHL, Education Resources Information Center, Education Abstracts, Criminal Justice Abstracts, Hein Index to Foreign Legal Periodicals, PAIS International, Social Services Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, Digital Dissertations and the Health Technology Assessment Database. We searched SCOPUS to identify articles that cited any of the included studies on 10 June 10 2021. We contacted authors and searched the reference lists of included studies to identify additional potentially relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included empirical studies of cohorts of systematic reviews that assessed methods for measuring effects on health inequalities. We define health inequalities as unfair and avoidable differences across socially stratifying factors that limit opportunities for health. We operationalised this by assessing studies which evaluated differences in health across any component of the PROGRESS-Plus acronym, which stands for Place of residence, Race/ethnicity/culture/language, Occupation, Gender or sex, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status, Social capital. "Plus" stands for other factors associated with discrimination, exclusion, marginalisation or vulnerability such as personal characteristics (e.g. age, disability), relationships that limit opportunities for health (e.g. children in a household with parents who smoke) or environmental situations which provide limited control of opportunities for health (e.g. school food environment). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data using a pre-tested form. Risk of bias was appraised for included studies according to the potential for bias in selection and detection of systematic reviews.  MAIN RESULTS: In total, 48,814 studies were identified and the titles and abstracts were screened in duplicate. In this updated review, we identified an additional 124 methodological studies published in the 10 years since the first version of this review, which included 34 studies. Thus, 158 methodological studies met our criteria for inclusion. The methods used by these studies focused on evidence relevant to populations experiencing health inequity (108 out of 158 studies), assess subgroup analysis across PROGRESS-Plus (26 out of 158 studies), assess analysis of a gradient in effect across PROGRESS-Plus (2 out of 158 studies) or use a combination of subgroup analysis and focused approaches (20 out of 158 studies). The most common PROGRESS-Plus factors assessed were age (43 studies), socioeconomic status in 35 studies, low- and middle-income countries in 24 studies, gender or sex in 22 studies, race or ethnicity in 17 studies, and four studies assessed multiple factors across which health inequity may exist. Only 16 studies provided a definition of health inequity. Five methodological approaches to consider health equity in systematic reviews of effectiveness were identified: 1) descriptive assessment of reporting and analysis in systematic reviews (140 of 158 studies used a type of descriptive method); 2) descriptive assessment of reporting and analysis in original trials (50 studies); 3) analytic approaches which assessed differential effects across one or more PROGRESS-Plus factors (16 studies); 4) applicability assessment (25 studies) and 5) stakeholder engagement (28 studies), which is a new finding in this update and examines the appraisal of whether relevant stakeholders with lived experience of health inequity were included in the design of systematic reviews or design and delivery of interventions. Reporting for both approaches (analytic and applicability) lacked transparency and was insufficiently detailed to enable the assessment of credibility. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for improvement in conceptual clarity about the definition of health equity, describing sufficient detail about analytic approaches (including subgroup analyses) and transparent reporting of judgments required for applicability assessments in order to consider health equity in systematic reviews of effectiveness.

Experts prioritize osteoarthritis non-surgical interventions from Cochrane systematic reviews for translation into "Evidence4Equity" summaries.

OBJECTIVE: Osteoarthritis generates substantial health and socioeconomic burden, which is particularly marked in marginalized groups. It is imperative that practitioners have ready access to summaries of evidence-based interventions for osteoarthritis that incorporate equity considerations. Summaries of systematic reviews can provide this. The present study surveyed experts to prioritize a selection ofinterventions, from which equity focused summaries will be generated. Specifically, the prioritized interventions will be developed into Cochrane Evidence4Equity (E4E) summaries. METHODS: Twenty-seven systematic reviews of OA interventions were found. From these, twenty-nine non-surgical treatments for osteoarthritis were identified, based on statistically significant findings for desired outcome variables or adverse events. Key findings from these studies were summarised and provided to 9 experts in the field of osteoarthritis.. Expert participants were asked to rate interventions based on feasibility, health system effects, universality, impact on inequities, and priority for translation into equity based E4E summaries. Expert participants were also encouraged to make comments to provide context for each rating. Free text responses were coded inductively and grouped into subthemes and themes. RESULTS: Expert participants rated the intervention home land-based exercise for knee OA highest for priority for translation into an E4E summaries, followed by the interventions individual land-based exercise for knee OA, class land-based exercise for knee OA, exercise for hand OA and land-based exercise for hip OA. Upon qualitative analysis of the expert participants' comments, fifteen subthemes were identified and grouped into three overall themes: (1) this intervention or an aspect of this intervention is unnecessary or unsafe; (2) this intervention or an aspect of this intervention may increase health inequities; and (3) experts noted difficulties completing rating exercise. CONCLUSION: The list of priority interventions and corresponding expert commentary generated information that will be used to direct and support knowledge translation efforts.

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.

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.

Practical Guidance for Involving Stakeholders in Health Research.

Stakeholder engagement is increasingly common in health research, with protocols for engaging multiple stakeholder groups becoming normative in patient-centered outcomes research. Previous work has focused on identifying relevant stakeholder groups with whom to work and on working with stakeholders in evidence implementation. This paper draws on the expertise of a team from four countries-Canada, Australia, the UK, and the USA-to provide researchers with practical guidance for carrying out multi-stakeholder-engaged projects: we present a list of questions to assist in selecting appropriate roles and modes of engagement; we introduce a matrix to help summarize engagement activities; and we provide a list of online resources. This guidance, matrix, and list of resources can assist researchers to consider more systematically which stakeholder groups to involve, in what study roles, and by what modes of engagement. By documenting how stakeholders are paired up with specific roles, the matrix also provides a potential structure for evaluating the impact of stakeholder engagement.

Comparison of different human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine types and dose schedules for prevention of HPV-related disease in females and males.

BACKGROUND: Uptake of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine remains low in many countries, although the bivalent and quadrivalent HPV vaccines given as a three-dose schedule are effective in the prevention of precancerous lesions of the cervix in women. Simpler immunisation schedules, such as those with fewer doses, might reduce barriers to vaccination, as may programmes that include males. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy, immunogenicity, and harms of different dose schedules and different types of HPV vaccines in females and males. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted electronic searches on 27 September 2018 in Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (in the Cochrane Library), and Ovid Embase. We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov (both 27 September 2018), vaccine manufacturer websites, and checked reference lists from an index of HPV studies and other relevant systematic reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with no language restriction. We considered studies if they enrolled HIV-negative males or females aged 9 to 26 years, or HIV-positive males or females of any age. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used methods recommended by Cochrane. We use the term 'control' to refer to comparator products containing an adjuvant or active vaccine and 'placebo' to refer to products that contain no adjuvant or active vaccine. Most primary outcomes in this review were clinical outcomes. However, for comparisons comparing dose schedules, the included RCTs were designed to measure antibody responses (i.e. immunogenicity) as the primary outcome, rather than clinical outcomes, since it is unethical to collect cervical samples from girls under 16 years of age. We analysed immunogenicity outcomes (i.e. geometric mean titres) with ratios of means, clinical outcomes (e.g. cancer and intraepithelial neoplasia) with risk ratios or rate ratios and, for serious adverse events and deaths, we calculated odds ratios. We rated the certainty of evidence with GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 20 RCTs with 31,940 participants. The length of follow-up in the included studies ranged from seven months to five years. Two doses versus three doses of HPV vaccine in 9- to 15-year-old females Antibody responses after two-dose and three-dose HPV vaccine schedules were similar after up to five years of follow-up (4 RCTs, moderate- to high-certainty evidence). No RCTs collected clinical outcome data. Evidence about serious adverse events in studies comparing dose schedules was of very low-certainty owing to imprecision and indirectness (three doses 35/1159; two doses 36/1158; 4 RCTs). One death was reported in the three-dose group (1/898) and none in the two-dose group (0/899) (low-certainty evidence). Interval between doses of HPV vaccine in 9- to 14-year-old females and males Antibody responses were stronger with a longer interval (6 or 12 months) between the first two doses of HPV vaccine than a shorter interval (2 or 6 months) at up to three years of follow-up (4 RCTs, moderate- to high-certainty evidence). No RCTs collected data about clinical outcomes. Evidence about serious adverse events in studies comparing intervals was of very low-certainty, owing to imprecision and indirectness. No deaths were reported in any of the studies (0/1898, 3 RCTs, low-certainty evidence). HPV vaccination of 10- to 26-year-old males In one RCT there was moderate-certainty evidence that quadrivalent HPV vaccine, compared with control, reduced the incidence of external genital lesions (control 36 per 3081 person-years; quadrivalent 6 per 3173 person-years; rate ratio 0.16, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.38; 6254 person-years) and anogenital warts (control 28 per 2814 person-years; quadrivalent 3 per 2831 person-years; rate ratio 0.11, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.38; 5645 person-years). The quadrivalent vaccine resulted in more injection-site adverse events, such as pain or redness, than control (537 versus 601 per 1000; risk ratio (RR) 1.12, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.18, 3895 participants, high-certainty evidence). There was very low-certainty evidence from two RCTs about serious adverse events with quadrivalent vaccine (control 12/2588; quadrivalent 8/2574), and about deaths (control 11/2591; quadrivalent 3/2582), owing to imprecision and indirectness. Nonavalent versus quadrivalent vaccine in 9- to 26-year-old females and males Three RCTs were included; one in females aged 9- to 15-years (n = 600), one in females aged 16- to 26-years (n = 14,215), and one in males aged 16- to 26-years (n = 500). The RCT in 16- to 26-year-old females reported clinical outcomes. There was little to no difference in the incidence of the combined outcome of high-grade cervical epithelial neoplasia, adenocarcinoma in situ, or cervical cancer between the HPV vaccines (quadrivalent 325/6882, nonavalent 326/6871; OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.16; 13,753 participants; high-certainty evidence). The other two RCTs did not collect data about clinical outcomes. There were slightly more local adverse events with the nonavalent vaccine (905 per 1000) than the quadrivalent vaccine (846 per 1000) (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.08; 3 RCTs, 15,863 participants; high-certainty evidence). Comparative evidence about serious adverse events in the three RCTs (nonavalent 243/8234, quadrivalent 192/7629; OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.14 to 2.61) was of low certainty, owing to imprecision and indirectness. HPV vaccination for people living with HIV Seven RCTs reported on HPV vaccines in people with HIV, with two small trials that collected data about clinical outcomes. Antibody responses were higher following vaccination with either bivalent or quadrivalent HPV vaccine than with control, and these responses could be demonstrated to have been maintained for up to 24 months in children living with HIV (low-certainty evidence). The evidence about clinical outcomes and harms for HPV vaccines in people with HIV is very uncertain (low- to very low-certainty evidence), owing to imprecision and indirectness. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The immunogenicity of two-dose and three-dose HPV vaccine schedules, measured using antibody responses in young females, is comparable. The quadrivalent vaccine probably reduces external genital lesions and anogenital warts in males compared with control. The nonavalent and quadrivalent vaccines offer similar protection against a combined outcome of cervical, vaginal, and vulval precancer lesions or cancer. In people living with HIV, both the bivalent and quadrivalent HPV vaccines result in high antibody responses. For all comparisons of alternative HPV vaccine schedules, the certainty of the body of evidence about serious adverse events reported during the study periods was low or very low, either because the number of events was low, or the evidence was indirect, or both. Post-marketing surveillance is needed to continue monitoring harms that might be associated with HPV vaccines in the population, and this evidence will be incorporated in future updates of this review. Long-term observational studies are needed to determine the effectiveness of reduced-dose schedules against HPV-related cancer endpoints, and whether adopting these schedules improves vaccine coverage rates.

ANTECEDENTES: La aceptación de la vacuna contra el virus del papiloma humano (VPH) sigue siendo baja en muchos países, aunque las vacunas bivalentes y cuadrivalentes contra el VPH administradas en un calendario de tres dosis son efectivas para prevenir las lesiones precancerosas del cuello uterino en las mujeres. Los calendarios de vacunación más sencillos, como los que incluyen menos dosis, podrían reducir las barreras a la vacunación, al igual que los calendarios que incluyen a los hombres. OBJETIVOS: Evaluar la eficacia, la inmunogenicidad y los efectos perjudiciales de diferentes calendarios de dosis y diferentes tipos de vacunas contra el VPH en mujeres y hombres. MÉTODOS DE BÚSQUEDA: Se realizaron búsquedas electrónicas el 27 de septiembre 2018 en Ovid MEDLINE, el Registro Cochrane Central de Ensayos Controlados (CENTRAL) (en la Biblioteca Cochrane) y Ovid Embase. También se realizaron búsquedas en la International Clinical Trials Registry Platform de la OMS y en ClinicalTrials.gov (ambas el 27 de septiembre 2018), en sitios web de fabricantes de vacunas y se verificaron las listas de referencias de un índice de estudios sobre el VPH y otras revisiones sistemáticas pertinentes. CRITERIOS DE SELECCIÓN: Se incluyeron ensayos controlados aleatorizados (ECA) sin restricciones de idioma. Se consideraron los estudios cuando habían reclutado a hombres o mujeres con pruebas negativas para el VIH de 9 a 26 años de edad, o a hombres o mujeres con pruebas positivas para el VIH de cualquier edad. OBTENCIÓN Y ANÁLISIS DE LOS DATOS: Se siguieron los métodos recomendados por Cochrane. Se utilizó el término "control" para hacer referencia a los productos de comparación que contienen un adyuvante o vacuna activa y "placebo" para hacer referencia a los productos que no contienen un adyuvante ni vacuna activa. La mayoría de los resultados primarios de esta revisión fueron resultados clínicos. Sin embargo, para las comparaciones de los calendarios de dosis, los ECA incluidos se diseñaron para medir las respuestas de los anticuerpos (es decir, la inmunogenicidad) como resultado primario, en lugar de los resultados clínicos, debido a que no es ético recoger muestras del cuello uterino de niñas menores de 16 años de edad. Se analizaron los resultados de inmunogenicidad (es decir, títulos de la media geométrica) con los cocientes de medias, los resultados clínicos (p.ej. cáncer y neoplasia intraepitelial) con los cocientes de riesgos o los cocientes de tasas y, para los eventos adversos graves y las muertes, se calcularon los odds­ratios. La certeza de la evidencia se evaluó con los criterios GRADE. RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES: Se incluyeron 20 ECA con 31 940 participantes. La duración del seguimiento en los estudios incluidos varió de siete meses a cinco años. Dos dosis frente a tres dosis de la vacuna contra el VPH en mujeres de 9 a 15 años de edad Las respuestas de los anticuerpos después de los calendarios de dos y tres dosis de la vacuna contra el VPH fueron similares después de hasta cinco años de seguimiento (4 ECA, evidencia de certeza moderada a alta). Ningún ECA recopiló datos de los resultados clínicos. La evidencia acerca de los eventos adversos graves en los estudios que compararon los calendarios de dosis fue de certeza muy baja debido a la imprecisión y a la falta de direccionalidad (tres dosis 35/1159; dos dosis 36/1158; 4 ECA). Se informó una muerte en el grupo de tres dosis (1/898) y ninguna en el grupo de dos dosis (0/899) (evidencia de certeza baja). Intervalo entre las dosis de la vacuna contra el VPH en mujeres y hombres de 9 a 14 años de edad Las respuestas de los anticuerpos fueron más significativas con un intervalo más largo (6 o 12 meses) entre las dos primeras dosis de la vacuna contra el VPH que con un intervalo más corto (2 o 6 meses) al momento del seguimiento de hasta tres años (4 ECA, evidencia de certeza moderada a alta). Ningún ECA recopiló datos sobre los resultados clínicos. La evidencia acerca de los eventos adversos graves en los estudios que compararon los intervalos fue de certeza muy baja, debido a la imprecisión y a la falta de direccionalidad. No se informaron muertes en ninguno de los estudios (0/1898, 3 ECA, evidencia de certeza baja). Vacunación contra el VPH en hombres de 10 a 26 años de edad En un ECA hubo evidencia de certeza moderada de que la vacuna cuadrivalente contra el VPH, en comparación con el control, redujo la incidencia de lesiones genitales externas (control 36 por 3081 personas­año; cuadrivalente 6 por 3173 personas­año; cociente de tasas 0,16; IC del 95%: 0,07 a 0,38; 6254 personas­año) y verrugas anogenitales (control 28 por 2814 personas­año; cuadrivalente 3 por 2831 años­persona; cociente de tasas 0,11; IC del 95%: 0,03 a 0,38; 5645 años­persona). La vacuna cuadrivalente produjo más eventos adversos relacionados con el sitio de la inyección, como dolor o enrojecimiento, que el control (537 frente a 601 por 1000; cociente de riesgos [CR] 1,12; IC del 95%: 1,06 a 1,18; 3895 participantes, evidencia de certeza alta). Hubo evidencia de certeza muy baja de dos ECA acerca de eventos adversos graves con la vacuna cuadrivalente (control 12/2588; cuadrivalente 8/2574), y acerca de las muertes (control 11/2591; cuadrivalente 3/2582), debido a la imprecisión y la falta de direccionalidad. Vacuna nonavalente frente a cuadrivalente en mujeres y hombres de 9 a 26 años de edad Se incluyeron tres ECA; uno en mujeres de 9 a 15 años de edad (n = 600), uno en mujeres de 16 a 26 años de edad (n = 14 215) y uno en hombres de 16 a 26 años de edad (n = 500). El ECA en mujeres de 16 a 26 años informó de los resultados clínicos. Hubo poca o ninguna diferencia en la incidencia del resultado combinado de neoplasia epitelial de cuello de útero de grado alto, adenocarcinoma in situ o cáncer de cuello de útero entre las vacunas contra el VPH (cuadrivalente 325/6882, nonavalente 326/6871; OR 1,00; IC del 95%: 0,85 a 1,16; 13 753 participantes; evidencia de certeza alta). Los otros dos ECA no recopilaron datos sobre los resultados clínicos. Hubo un número ligeramente mayor de eventos adversos locales con la vacuna nonavalente (905 por 1000) que con la vacuna cuadrivalente (846 por 1000) (CR 1,07; IC del 95%: 1,05 a 1,08; 3 ECA, 15 863 participantes; evidencia de certeza alta). La evidencia comparativa acerca de los eventos adversos graves en los tres ECA (nonavalente 243/8234, cuadrivalente 192/7629; OR 0,60; IC del 95%: 0,14 a 2,61) fue de certeza baja, debido a la imprecisión y a la falta de direccionalidad. Vacunación contra el VPH para las personas que conviven con el VIH Siete ECA informaron sobre las vacunas contra el VPH en personas con VIH, y dos ensayos pequeños recopilaron datos sobre los resultados clínicos. Las respuestas de los anticuerpos fueron más altas después de la vacunación con la vacuna bivalente o cuadrivalente contra el VPH que con el control, y se pudo demostrar que estas respuestas se mantuvieron hasta 24 meses en niños que convivían con el VIH (evidencia de certeza baja). La evidencia acerca de los resultados clínicos y los efectos perjudiciales de las vacunas contra el VPH en las personas con VIH es muy incierta (evidencia de certeza baja a muy baja), debido a la imprecisión y a la falta de direccionalidad. CONCLUSIONES DE LOS AUTORES: Es similar la inmunogenicidad de los calendarios de dos y tres dosis de la vacuna contra el VPH, medida con las respuestas de los anticuerpos en mujeres jóvenes. La vacuna cuadrivalente probablemente reduce las lesiones genitales externas y las verrugas anogenitales en los hombres en comparación con el control. Las vacunas nonavalentes y cuadrivalentes ofrecen una protección similar en cuanto a un resultado combinado de lesiones precancerosas o cáncer de cuello de útero, vaginal y vulvar. En los individuos que conviven con el VIH, tanto las vacunas bivalentes como las cuadrivalentes contra el VPH producen respuestas altas de los anticuerpos. Para todas las comparaciones de los calendarios alternativos de la vacuna contra el VPH, la certeza del conjunto de evidencia sobre los eventos adversos graves notificados durante los períodos de estudio fue baja o muy baja, debido a que el número de eventos fue escaso, o a que la evidencia fue indirecta, o ambos. La vigilancia posterior a la comercialización es necesaria para continuar con el control de los efectos perjudiciales que podrían estar asociados con las vacunas contra el VPH en la población, y esta evidencia se incorporará en las actualizaciones futuras de esta revisión. Se necesitan estudios observacionales a largo plazo para determinar la efectividad de los calendarios de dosis reducidas con respecto a las variables de evaluación del cáncer relacionado con el VPH, y si la adopción de estos calendarios mejora las tasas de cobertura de la vacuna.

Potential harms associated with routine collection of patient sociodemographic information: A rapid review.

BACKGROUND: Health systems are recommended to capture routine patient sociodemographic data as a key step in providing equitable person-centred care. However, collection of this information has the potential to cause harm, especially for vulnerable or potentially disadvantaged patients. OBJECTIVE: To identify harms perceived or experienced by patients, their families, or health-care providers from collection of sociodemographic information during routine health-care visits and to identify best practices for when, by whom and how to collect this information. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched OVID MEDLINE, PubMed "related articles" via NLM and healthevidence.org to the end of January 2018 and assessed reference lists and related citations of included studies. INCLUSION CRITERIA: We included studies reporting on harms of collecting patient sociodemographic information in health-care settings. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data on study characteristics and types of harms were extracted and summarized narratively. MAIN RESULTS: Eighteen studies were included; 13 provided patient perceptions or experiences with the collection of these data and seven studies reported on provider perceptions. Five reported on patient recommendations for collecting sociodemographic information. Patients and providers reported similar potential harms which were grouped into the following themes: altered behaviour which may affect care-seeking, data misuse or privacy concerns, discomfort, discrimination, offence or negative reactions, and quality of care. Patients suggested that sociodemographic information be collected face to face by a physician. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Overall, patients support the collection of sociodemographic information. However, harms are possible, especially for some population subgroups. Harms may be mitigated by providing a rationale for the collection of this information.

Non-clinical interventions for reducing unnecessary caesarean section.

BACKGROUND: Caesarean section rates are increasing globally. The factors contributing to this increase are complex, and identifying interventions to address them is challenging. Non-clinical interventions are applied independently of a clinical encounter between a health provider and a patient. Such interventions may target women, health professionals or organisations. They address the determinants of caesarean births and could have a role in reducing unnecessary caesarean sections. This review was first published in 2011. This review update will inform a new WHO guideline, and the scope of the update was informed by WHO's Guideline Development Group for this guideline. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of non-clinical interventions intended to reduce unnecessary caesarean section. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and two trials registers in March 2018. We also searched websites of relevant organisations and reference lists of related reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series studies and repeated measures studies were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome measures were: caesarean section, spontaneous vaginal birth and instrumental birth. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. We narratively described results of individual studies (drawing summarised evidence from single studies assessing distinct interventions). MAIN RESULTS: We included 29 studies in this review (19 randomised trials, 1 controlled before-after study and 9 interrupted time series studies). Most of the studies (20 studies) were conducted in high-income countries and none took place in low-income countries. The studies enrolled a mixed population of pregnant women, including nulliparous women, multiparous women, women with a fear of childbirth, women with high levels of anxiety and women having undergone a previous caesarean section.Overall, we found low-, moderate- or high-certainty evidence that the following interventions have a beneficial effect on at least one primary outcome measure and no moderate- or high-certainty evidence of adverse effects.Interventions targeted at women or familiesChildbirth training workshops for mothers alone may reduce caesarean section (risk ratio (RR) 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33 to 0.89) and may increase spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 2.25, 95% CI 1.16 to 4.36). Childbirth training workshops for couples may reduce caesarean section (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.94) and may increase spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 2.13, 95% CI 1.09 to 4.16). We judged this one study with 60 participants to have low-certainty evidence for the outcomes above.Nurse-led applied relaxation training programmes (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.43; 104 participants, low-certainty evidence) and psychosocial couple-based prevention programmes (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.90; 147 participants, low-certainty evidence) may reduce caesarean section. Psychoeducation may increase spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.61; 371 participants, low-certainty evidence). The control group received routine maternity care in all studies.There were insufficient data on the effect of the four interventions on maternal and neonatal mortality or morbidity.Interventions targeted at healthcare professionalsImplementation of clinical practice guidelines combined with mandatory second opinion for caesarean section indication slightly reduces the risk of overall caesarean section (mean difference in rate change -1.9%, 95% CI -3.8 to -0.1; 149,223 participants). Implementation of clinical practice guidelines combined with audit and feedback also slightly reduces the risk of caesarean section (risk difference (RD) -1.8%, 95% CI -3.8 to -0.2; 105,351 participants). Physician education by local opinion leader (obstetrician-gynaecologist) reduced the risk of elective caesarean section to 53.7% from 66.8% (opinion leader education: 53.7%, 95% CI 46.5 to 61.0%; control: 66.8%, 95% CI 61.7 to 72.0%; 2496 participants). Healthcare professionals in the control groups received routine care in the studies. There was little or no difference in maternal and neonatal mortality or morbidity between study groups. We judged the certainty of evidence to be high.Interventions targeted at healthcare organisations or facilitiesCollaborative midwifery-labourist care (in which the obstetrician provides in-house labour and delivery coverage, 24 hours a day, without competing clinical duties), versus a private practice model of care, may reduce the primary caesarean section rate. In one interrupted time series study, the caesarean section rate decreased by 7% in the year after the intervention, and by 1.7% per year thereafter (1722 participants); the vaginal birth rate after caesarean section increased from 13.3% before to 22.4% after the intervention (684 participants). Maternal and neonatal mortality were not reported. We judged the certainty of evidence to be low.We studied the following interventions, and they either made little or no difference to caesarean section rates or had uncertain effects.Moderate-certainty evidence suggests little or no difference in caesarean section rates between usual care and: antenatal education programmes for physiologic childbirth; antenatal education on natural childbirth preparation with training in breathing and relaxation techniques; computer-based decision aids; individualised prenatal education and support programmes (versus written information in pamphlet).Low-certainty evidence suggests little or no difference in caesarean section rates between usual care and: psychoeducation; pelvic floor muscle training exercises with telephone follow-up (versus pelvic floor muscle training without telephone follow-up); intensive group therapy (cognitive behavioural therapy and childbirth psychotherapy); education of public health nurses on childbirth classes; role play (versus standard education using lectures); interactive decision aids (versus educational brochures); labourist model of obstetric care (versus traditional model of obstetric care).We are very uncertain as to the effect of other interventions identified on caesarean section rates as the certainty of the evidence is very low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We evaluated a wide range of non-clinical interventions to reduce unnecessary caesarean section, mostly in high-income settings. Few interventions with moderate- or high-certainty evidence, mainly targeting healthcare professionals (implementation of guidelines combined with mandatory second opinion, implementation of guidelines combined with audit and feedback, physician education by local opinion leader) have been shown to safely reduce caesarean section rates. There are uncertainties in existing evidence related to very-low or low-certainty evidence, applicability of interventions and lack of studies, particularly around interventions targeted at women or families and healthcare organisations or facilities.

Assessing the complexity of interventions within systematic reviews: development, content and use of a new tool (iCAT_SR).

BACKGROUND: Health interventions fall along a spectrum from simple to more complex. There is wide interest in methods for reviewing 'complex interventions', but few transparent approaches for assessing intervention complexity in systematic reviews. Such assessments may assist review authors in, for example, systematically describing interventions and developing logic models. This paper describes the development and application of the intervention Complexity Assessment Tool for Systematic Reviews (iCAT_SR), a new tool to assess and categorise levels of intervention complexity in systematic reviews. METHODS: We developed the iCAT_SR by adapting and extending an existing complexity assessment tool for randomized trials. We undertook this adaptation using a consensus approach in which possible complexity dimensions were circulated for feedback to a panel of methodologists with expertise in complex interventions and systematic reviews. Based on these inputs, we developed a draft version of the tool. We then invited a second round of feedback from the panel and a wider group of systematic reviewers. This informed further refinement of the tool. RESULTS: The tool comprises ten dimensions: (1) the number of active components in the intervention; (2) the number of behaviours of recipients to which the intervention is directed; (3) the range and number of organizational levels targeted by the intervention; (4) the degree of tailoring intended or flexibility permitted across sites or individuals in applying or implementing the intervention; (5) the level of skill required by those delivering the intervention; (6) the level of skill required by those receiving the intervention; (7) the degree of interaction between intervention components; (8) the degree to which the effects of the intervention are context dependent; (9) the degree to which the effects of the interventions are changed by recipient or provider factors; (10) and the nature of the causal pathway between intervention and outcome. Dimensions 1-6 are considered 'core' dimensions. Dimensions 7-10 are optional and may not be useful for all interventions. CONCLUSIONS: The iCAT_SR tool facilitates more in-depth, systematic assessment of the complexity of interventions in systematic reviews and can assist in undertaking reviews and interpreting review findings. Further testing of the tool is now needed.

Setting priorities for knowledge translation of Cochrane reviews for health equity: Evidence for Equity.

BACKGROUND: A focus on equity in health can be seen in many global development goals and reports, research and international declarations. With the development of a relevant framework and methods, the Campbell and Cochrane Equity Methods Group has encouraged the application of an 'equity lens' to systematic reviews, and many organizations publish reviews intended to address health equity. The purpose of the Evidence for Equity (E4E) project was to conduct a priority-setting exercise and apply an equity lens by developing a knowledge translation product comprising summaries of systematic reviews from the Cochrane Library. E4E translates evidence from systematic reviews into 'friendly front end' summaries for policy makers. METHODS: The following topic areas with high burdens of disease globally, were selected for the pilot: diabetes/obesity, HIV/AIDS, malaria, nutrition, and mental health/depression. For each topic area, a "stakeholder panel" was assembled that included policymakers and researchers. A systematic search of Cochrane reviews was conducted for each area to identify equity-relevant interventions with a meaningful impact. Panel chairs developed a rating sheet which was used by all panels to rank the importance of these interventions by: 1) Ease of Implementation; 2) Health System Requirements; 3)Universality/Generalizability/Share of Burden; and 4) Impact on Inequities/Effect on equity. The ratings of panel members were averaged for each intervention and criterion, and interventions were ordered according to the average overall ratings. RESULTS: Stakeholder panels identified the top 10 interventions from their respective topic areas. The evidence on these interventions is being summarized with an equity focus and the results posted online, at http://methods.cochrane.org/equity/e4e-series . CONCLUSIONS: This method provides an explicit approach to setting priorities by systematic review groups and funders for providing decision makers with evidence for the most important equity-relevant interventions.

Interventions to improve access to cataract surgical services and their impact on equity in low- and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: Cataract is the leading cause of blindness in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), and the prevalence is inequitably distributed between and within countries. Interventions have been undertaken to improve cataract surgical services, however, the effectiveness of these interventions on promoting equity is not known. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects on equity of interventions to improve access to cataract services for populations with cataract blindness (and visual impairment) in LMICs. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2017, Issue 3), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 12 April 2017), Embase Ovid (1980 to 12 April 2017), LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database) (1982 to 12 April 2017), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch); searched 12 April 2017, ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov); searched 12 April 2017 and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en); searched 12 April 2017. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies that reported on strategies to improve access to cataract services in LMICs using the following study designs: randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled before-and-after studies, and interrupted time series studies. Included studies were conducted in LMICs, and were targeted at disadvantaged populations, or disaggregated outcome data by 'PROGRESS-Plus' factors (Place of residence; Race/ethnicity/ culture/ language; Occupation; Gender/sex; Religion; Education; Socio-economic status; Social capital/networks. The 'Plus' component includes disability, sexual orientation and age). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors (JR and JP) independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed them for risk of bias. Meta-analysis was not possible, so included studies were synthesised in table and text. MAIN RESULTS: From a total of 2865 studies identified in the search, two met our eligibility criteria, both of which were cluster-RCTs conducted in rural China. The way in which the trials were conducted means that the risk of bias is unclear. In both studies, villages were randomised to be either an intervention or control group. Adults identified with vision-impairing cataract, following village-based vision and eye health assessment, either received an intervention to increase uptake of cataract surgery (if their village was an intervention group), or to receive 'standard care' (if their village was a control group).One study (n = 434), randomly allocated 26 villages or townships to the intervention, which involved watching an informational video and receiving counselling about cataract and cataract surgery, while the control group were advised that they had decreased vision due to cataract and it could be treated, without being shown the video or receiving counselling. There was low-certainty evidence that providing information and counselling had no effect on uptake of referral to the hospital (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.67, 1 RCT, 434 participants) and little or no effect on the uptake of surgery (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.84, 1 RCT, 434 participants). We assessed the level of evidence to be of low-certainty for both outcomes, due to indirectness of evidence and imprecision of results.The other study (n = 355, 24 towns randomised) included three intervention arms: free surgery; free surgery plus reimbursement of transport costs; and free surgery plus free transport to and from the hospital. These were compared to the control group, which was reminded to use the "low-cost" (˜USD 38) surgical service. There was low-certainty evidence that surgical fee waiver with/without transport provision or reimbursement increased uptake of surgery (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.14 to 3.31, 1 RCT, 355 participants). We assessed the level of evidence to be of low-certainty due to indirectness of evidence and imprecision of results.Neither of the studies reported our primary outcome of change in prevalence of cataract blindness, or other outcomes such as cataract surgical coverage, surgical outcome, or adverse effects. Neither study disaggregated outcomes by social subgroups to enable further assessment of equity effects. We sought data from both studies and obtained data from one; the information video and counselling intervention did not have a differential effect across the PROGRESS-Plus categories with available data (place of residence, gender, education level, socioeconomic status and social capital). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence on the effect on equity of interventions to improve access to cataract services in LMICs is limited. We identified only two studies, both conducted in rural China. Assessment of equity effects will be improved if future studies disaggregate outcomes by relevant social subgroups. To assist with assessing generalisability of findings to other settings, robust data on contextual factors are also needed.

Reporting quality and risk of bias in randomised trials in health professions education.

CONTEXT: Complete reporting of research is essential to enable consumers to accurately appraise, interpret and apply findings. Quality appraisal checklists are giving way to tools that judge the risk for bias. OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine the prevalence of these complementary aspects of research reports (completeness of reporting and perceived risk for bias) of randomised studies in health professions education. METHODS: We searched bibliographic databases for randomised studies of health professions education. We appraised two cohorts representing different time periods (2008-2010 and 2014, respectively) and worked in duplicate to apply the CONSORT guidelines and Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. We explored differences between time periods using independent-samples t-tests or the chi-squared test, as appropriate. RESULTS: We systematically identified 180 randomised studies (2008-2010, n = 150; 2014, n = 30). Frequencies of reporting of CONSORT elements within full-text reports were highly variable and most elements were reported in fewer than 50% of studies. We found a statistically significant difference in the CONSORT reporting index (maximum score: 500) between the 2008-2010 (mean ± standard deviation [SD]: 242.7 ± 55.6) and 2014 (mean ± SD: 311.6 ± 53.2) cohorts (p < 0.001). High or unclear risk for bias was most common for allocation concealment (157, 87%) and blinding of participants (147, 82%), personnel (152, 84%) and outcome assessors (112, 62%). Most risk for bias elements were judged to be unclear (range: 51-84%). Risk for bias elements significantly improved over time for blinding of participants (p = 0.007), incomplete data (p < 0.001) and the presence of other sources of bias (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Reports of randomised studies in health professions education frequently omit elements recommended by the CONSORT statement. Most reports were assessed as having a high or unclear risk for bias. Greater attention to how studies are reported at study outset and in manuscript preparation could improve levels of complete transparent reporting.

Extending the PRISMA statement to equity-focused systematic reviews (PRISMA-E 2012): explanation and elaboration.

BACKGROUND: The promotion of health equity, the absence of avoidable and unfair differences in health outcomes, is a global imperative. Systematic reviews are an important source of evidence for health decision-makers, but have been found to lack assessments of the intervention effects on health equity. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) is a 27 item checklist intended to improve transparency and reporting of systematic reviews. We developed an equity extension for PRISMA (PRISMA-E 2012) to help systematic reviewers identify, extract, and synthesise evidence on equity in systematic reviews. METHODS AND FINDINGS: In this explanation and elaboration paper we provide the rationale for each extension item. These items are additions or modifications to the existing PRISMA Statement items, in order to incorporate a focus on equity. An example of good reporting is provided for each item as well as the original PRISMA item. CONCLUSIONS: This explanation and elaboration document is intended to accompany the PRISMA-E 2012 Statement and the PRISMA Statement to improve understanding of the reporting guideline for users. The PRISMA-E 2012 reporting guideline is intended to improve transparency and completeness of reporting of equity-focused systematic reviews. Improved reporting can lead to better judgement of applicability by policy makers which may result in more appropriate policies and programs and may contribute to reductions in health inequities. To encourage wide dissemination of this article it is accessible on the International Journal for Equity in Health, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, and Journal of Development Effectiveness web sites.

Strategies to increase the ownership and use of insecticide-treated bednets to prevent malaria.

BACKGROUND: Malaria is a life-threatening parasitic disease and 40% of the world's population lives in areas affected by malaria. Insecticide-treated bednets (ITNs) effectively prevent malaria, however, barriers to their use have been identified. OBJECTIVES: To assess the evidence on the effectiveness of available strategies that focus on delivery and appropriate use of ITNs. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the EPOC Register of Studies, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, HealthStar, CINAHL, PubMed, Science Citation Index, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, African Index Medicus (AIM), World Health Organization Library and Information Networks for Knowledge (WHOLIS), LILACS, Virtual Health Library (VHL), and the World Health Organization Library Information System (WHOLIS). Initial searches were conducted in May 2011, updated in March 2012 and February 2013. Authors contacted organizations and individuals involved in ITN distribution programs or research to identify current initiatives, studies or unpublished data, and searched reference lists of relevant reviews and studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series evaluating interventions focused on increasing ITN ownership and use were considered. The populations of interest were individuals in malaria-endemic areas. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened studies to be included. They extracted data from the selected studies and assessed the risk of bias. When consensus was not reached, any disagreements were discussed with a third author. The magnitude of effect and quality of evidence for each outcome was assessed. MAIN RESULTS: Of the 3032 records identified, 10 studies were included in this review. Effect of ITN cost on ownership:Four studies including 4566 households and another study comprising 424 participants evaluated the effect of ITN price on ownership. These studies suggest that providing free ITNs probably increases ITN ownership when compared to subsidized ITNs or ITNs offered at full market price. Effect of ITN Cost on appropriate use of ITNs:Three studies including 9968 households and another study comprising 259 individuals found that there is probably little or no difference in the use of ITNs when they are provided free, compared to providing subsidized ITNs or ITNs offered at full market price. Education:Five studies, including 12,637 households, assessed educational interventions regarding ITN use and concluded that education may increase the number of adults and children using ITNs (sleeping under ITNs) compared to no education.One study, including 519 households, assessed the effects of providing an incentive (an undisclosed prize) to promote ITN ownership and use, and found that incentives probably lead to little or no difference in ownership or use of ITNs, compared to not receiving an incentive.None of the included studies reported on adverse effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Five studies examined the effect of price on ITN ownership and found moderate-certainty evidence that ownership was highest among the groups who received the ITN free versus those who purchased the ITN at any cost. In economic terms, this means that demand for ITNs is elastic with regard to price. However, once the ITN is supplied, the price paid for the ITN probably has little to no effect on its use; the four studies addressing this outcome failed to confirm the hypothesis that people who purchase nets will use them more than those who receive them at no cost. Educational interventions for promoting ITN use have an additional positive effect. However, the impact of different types or intensities of education is unknown.

A review of health equity considerations in cochrane reviews of lifestyle interventions for cardiovascular health in adults.

OBJECTIVES: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of global disease burden and rising health-care costs. Systematic reviews (SRs) rigorously evaluate evidence on health interventions' effects and guide personal, clinical, and policy decision-making. Health equity is the absence of avoidable and unfair differences in health between groups within a population. Assessing equity in lifestyle interventions for cardiovascular health is important due to persisting health inequities in CVD burden and access to interventions. We aim to explore how health equity considerations are addressed in Cochrane SRs of lifestyle interventions for cardiovascular health. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This is a methodological review of Cochrane SRs of lifestyle interventions for cardiovascular health using the PROGRESS-Plus framework. PROGRESS-Plus stands for Place of residence, Race/ethnicity/culture/language, Occupation, Gender/sex, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status, and Social capital, while "Plus" stands for additional factors associated with discrimination and exclusion such as age, disability, and comorbidity. Using predefined selection criteria, two authors independently screened all Cochrane reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) between August 2017 and December 2022. PROGRESS-Plus factors in the SRs were sought in the Summary of Findings (SoF) table, Methods/Inclusion criteria, Methods/Subgroup analyses, Results/Included studies, Results/Subgroup analyses, and Discussion/Overall completeness and applicability of evidence. RESULTS: We included 36 SRs published by 10 Cochrane groups, addressing 11 health conditions with mostly dietary and exercise interventions. The most common PROGRESS-Plus factors assessed were gender/sex, age, and comorbidity. PROGRESS-Plus factors were most addressed in the inclusion criteria (64%), the discussion (75%), and the included studies (92%) sections of the SRs. Only 33% of SoF tables referenced PROGRESS-Plus. Sixty-nine percent of the included SRs planned for subgroup analyses across one or more PROGRESS-Plus factors, but only 43% of SRs conducted subgroup analyses, suggesting limited reporting of PROGRESS-Plus factors in primary studies. CONCLUSION: Equity factors are not sufficiently addressed in Cochrane reviews of lifestyle interventions for cardiovascular health. Low reporting of PROGRESS-Plus factors in implications for practice and research sections of Cochrane SRs limit equity-focused guidance for current clinical practice, public health interventions, and future research.

Development of recommendations for a minimum dataset for Identifying Social factors that Stratify Health Opportunities and Outcomes (ISSHOOs) in pain research.

There is increasing recognition of the need for researchers to collect and report data that can illuminate health inequities. In pain research, routinely collecting equity-relevant data has the potential to inform about the generalisability of findings; whether the intervention has differential effects across strata of society; or it could be used to guide population targeting for clinical studies. Developing clarity and consensus on what data should be collected and how to collect it is required to prompt researchers to further consider equity issues in the planning, conduct, interpretation, and reporting of research. The overarching aim of the 'Identifying Social Factors that Stratify Health Opportunities and Outcomes' (ISSHOOs) in pain research project is to provide researchers in the pain field with recommendations to guide the routine collection of equity-relevant data. The design of this project is consistent with the methods outlined in the 'Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines' and involves 4 stages: (i) Scoping review; (ii) Delphi Study; (iii) Consensus Meeting; and (iv) Focus Groups. This stakeholder-engaged project will produce a minimum dataset that has global, expert consensus. Results will be disseminated along with explanation and elaboration as a crucial step towards facilitating future action to address avoidable disparities in pain outcomes.