Definitions, terminology, and related concepts of "racial health equity": a scoping review protocol.

BACKGROUND: In the USA, access to quality healthcare varies greatly across racial and ethnic groups, resulting in significant health disparities. A new term, "racial health equity" (RHE), is increasingly reported in the medical literature, but there is currently no consensus definition of the term. Additionally, related terms such as "health disparities," "health inequities," and "equality" have been inconsistently used when defining RHE. METHODS: The primary purpose of this scoping review is to investigate the current use and underlying concepts used to define racial health equity. The study will address two key questions: (1) "What terminology and definitions have been used to characterize RHE?" and (2) "What knowledge gaps and challenges are present in the current state of RHE research and theory?" The review will collect and analyze data from three sources: (1) websites from key national and international health organizations, (2) theoretical and narrative published articles, and (3) evidence synthesis studies addressing interventions targeting racial health equity and minority stakeholder engagement. DISCUSSION: Defining "racial health equity" and related terminology is the first step to advancing racial health equity within the USA. This review aims to offer an improved understanding of RHE constructs and definitions, bringing greater unity to national racial health equity research efforts across disciplines. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This protocol is registered with the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/7pvzq .

Study Preregistration: Measuring What Matters: Development and Dissemination of a Core Outcome Set for Pediatric Anxiety Disorders Clinical Trials.

Pediatric anxiety disorders (AD) are prevalent disorders with an impact on all aspects of a child's life and functioning.1 Although evidence supports commonly used treatments, there are notable concerns with the research to date.2 Heterogeneity in outcome selection, measurement, analysis, and reporting is a contributing factor to the hinderance of the translation of research into clinical practice.3 Recognition for outcome standardization in pediatric mental health disorders is evolving and there are several initiatives of importance, including the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM), which has developed standardized outcome sets for use in the routine clinical mental health treatment of children and adolescents.4 Similarly, the International Alliance of Mental Health Research Funders5 advocate for use of 1 specific outcome measurement instrument (OMI) in the youth mental health research that they fund. Development of a Core Outcome Set (COS), a minimal set of outcomes that should be measured and reported in clinical trials, has been a solution in other areas of medicine to address heterogeneity in outcome selection and measurement across trials.6 The Core Outcomes and Measures in Pediatric Anxiety Clinical Trials (COMPACT) Initiative will develop a harmonized, evidence- and consensus-based COS that is meaningful to youth and families for use in future trials in pediatric AD.

Changing patterns in reporting and sharing of review data in systematic reviews with meta-analysis of the effects of interventions: cross sectional meta-research study.

OBJECTIVES: To examine changes in completeness of reporting and frequency of sharing data, analytical code, and other review materials in systematic reviews over time; and factors associated with these changes. DESIGN: Cross sectional meta-research study. POPULATION: Random sample of 300 systematic reviews with meta-analysis of aggregate data on the effects of a health, social, behavioural, or educational intervention. Reviews were indexed in PubMed, Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, Scopus, and Education Collection in November 2020. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The extent of complete reporting and the frequency of sharing review materials in the systematic reviews indexed in 2020 were compared with 110 systematic reviews indexed in February 2014. Associations between completeness of reporting and various factors (eg, self-reported use of reporting guidelines, journal policies on data sharing) were examined by calculating risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Several items were reported suboptimally among 300 systematic reviews from 2020, such as a registration record for the review (n=113; 38%), a full search strategy for at least one database (n=214; 71%), methods used to assess risk of bias (n=185; 62%), methods used to prepare data for meta-analysis (n=101; 34%), and source of funding for the review (n=215; 72%). Only a few items not already reported at a high frequency in 2014 were reported more frequently in 2020. No evidence indicated that reviews using a reporting guideline were more completely reported than reviews not using a guideline. Reviews published in 2020 in journals that mandated either data sharing or inclusion of data availability statements were more likely to share their review materials (eg, data, code files) than reviews in journals without such mandates (16/87 (18%) v 4/213 (2%)). CONCLUSION: Incomplete reporting of several recommended items for systematic reviews persists, even in reviews that claim to have followed a reporting guideline. Journal policies on data sharing might encourage sharing of review materials.

Research priority setting related to older adults: a scoping review to inform the Cochrane-Campbell Global Ageing Partnership work programme.

OBJECTIVE: To explore and map the findings of prior research priority-setting initiatives related to improving the health and well-being of older adults. DESIGN: Scoping review. DATA SOURCES: Searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, AgeLine, CINAHL and PsycINFO databases from January 2014 to 26 April 2021, and the James Lind Alliance top 10 priorities. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included primary studies reporting research priorities gathered from stakeholders that focused on ageing or the health of older adults (≥60 years). There were no restrictions by setting, but language was limited to English and French. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We used a modified Reporting Guideline for Priority Setting of Health Research (REPRISE) guideline to assess the transparency of the reported methods. Population-intervention-control-outcome (PICO) priorities were categorised according to their associated International Classification of Health Interventions (ICHI) and International Classification of Functioning (ICF) outcomes. Broad research topics were categorised thematically. RESULTS: Sixty-four studies met our inclusion criteria. The studies gathered opinions from various stakeholder groups, including clinicians (n=56 studies) and older adults (n=35), and caregivers (n=24), with 75% of the initiatives involving multiple groups. None of the included priority-setting initiatives reported gathering opinions from stakeholders located in low-income or middle-income countries. Of the priorities extracted, 272 were identified as broad research topics, while 217 were identified as PICO priorities. PICO priorities that involved clinical outcomes (n=165 priorities) and interventions concerning health-related behaviours (n=59) were identified most often. Broad research topics on health services and systems were identified most often (n=60). Across all these included studies, the reporting of six REPRISE elements was deemed to be critically low. CONCLUSION: Future priority setting initiatives should focus on documenting a more detailed methodology with all initiatives eliciting opinions from caregivers and older adults to ensure priorities reflect the opinions of all key stakeholder groups.

Guidance relevant to the reporting of health equity in observational research: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Health inequities are defined as unfair and avoidable differences in health between groups within a population. Most health research is conducted through observational studies, which are able to offer real-world insights about etiology, healthcare policy/programme effectiveness and the impacts of socioeconomic factors. However, most published reports of observational studies do not address how their findings relate to health equity. Our team seeks to develop equity-relevant reporting guidance as an extension of the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement. This scoping review will inform the development of candidate items for the STROBE-Equity extension. We will operationalise equity-seeking populations using the PROGRESS-Plus framework of sociodemographic factors. As part of a parallel stream of the STROBE-Equity project, the relevance of candidate guideline items to Indigenous research will be led by Indigenous coinvestigators on the team. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute method for conducting scoping reviews. We will evaluate the extent to which the identified guidance supports or refutes our preliminary candidate items for reporting equity in observational studies. These candidate items were developed based on items from equity-reporting guidelines for randomised trials and systematic reviews, developed by members of this team. We will consult with our knowledge users, patients/public partners and Indigenous research steering committee to invite suggestions for relevant guidance documents and interpretation of findings. If the identified guidance suggests the need for additional candidate items, they will be developed through inductive thematic analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: We will follow a principled approach that promotes ethical codevelopment with our community partners, based on principles of cultural safety, authentic partnerships, addressing colonial structures in knowledge production and the shared ownership, interpretation, and dissemination of research. All products of this research will be published as open access.

Strengthening systematic reviews in public health: guidance in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, 2nd edition.

AIMS: Decision makers in public health practice and policy rely on access to trustworthy, relevant, synthesized evidence. The second edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions ('the Handbook') reflects a major revision in guidance for authors of systematic reviews, incorporating a decade of methodological development and a number of significant changes to previous recommendations. This paper aims to highlight new guidance that addresses a number of key methodological challenges for authors of systematic reviews in public health. RESULTS: The revised Handbook includes guidance on framing public health research questions for synthesis, considering equity, intervention complexity, risk of bias assessment and synthesis methods other than meta-analysis. Reviews of public health interventions frequently encounter the types of methodological complexity addressed in this new guidance. CONCLUSION: We hope that readers will find that the Cochrane Handbook includes detailed and thoughtful guidance on both conceptualizing and executing systematic reviews relevant to public health questions. Considering the available methods guidance will, we hope, provide support for authors of public health reviews to tackle the challenges they encounter, strengthen their analysis and provide useful answers to the important questions asked by stakeholders and users of public health evidence.

Scoping review of evidence for managing postnatal hypoglycaemia.

OBJECTIVES: To identify what is known empirically about the screening, treatment and harm of exposure to neonatal hypoglycaemia. DESIGN: Scoping review that applied a preregistered protocol based on established frameworks. DATA SOURCES: Medline and Embase, up to 12 May 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Comparative and case-series studies, as well as guidelines, published in English or French, on the topic of immediate inpatient postnatal glucose screening in newborns. DATA GATHERING: Article selection and characterisation were performed in duplicate using predefined data extraction forms specific to primary studies and guidelines. RESULTS: 12 guidelines and 74 primary studies were included. A neurodevelopmental outcome was primary in 32 studies: 30 observational studies followed up posthypoglycaemic, and the 2 intervention studies included 1 randomised controlled trial (RCT) about treatment thresholds. Three other RCTs assessed dextrose gel (two) and oral sucrose (one). 12 of 30 studies that evaluated non-neurodevelopmental primary outcomes were intervention studies. Only one cohort study compared outcomes in screened vs unscreened newborns. The guidelines did not arrive at a consensus definition of postnatal hypoglycaemic, and addressed potential harms of screening more often than primary studies. CONCLUSIONS: The primary literature that informs hypoglycaemia screening is a series of studies that relate neurodevelopmental outcomes to postnatal hypoglycaemia. Further research is needed to better define an optimal threshold for hypoglycaemia that warrants intervention, based on long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes and a better delineation of potential screening harms.

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.

[The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviewsDeclaración PRISMA 2020: una guía actualizada para la publicación de revisiones sistemáticas]. / A declaração PRISMA 2020: diretriz atualizada para relatar revisões sistemáticas.

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.

La declaración PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses), publicada en 2009, se diseñó para ayudar a los autores de revisiones sistemáticas a documentar de manera transparente el porqué de la revisión, qué hicieron los autores y qué encontraron. Durante la última década, ha habido muchos avances en la metodología y terminología de las revisiones sistemáticas, lo que ha requerido una actualización de esta guía. La declaración PRISMA 2020 sustituye a la declaración de 2009 e incluye una nueva guía de presentación de las publicaciones que refleja los avances en los métodos para identificar, seleccionar, evaluar y sintetizar estudios. La estructura y la presentación de los ítems ha sido modificada para facilitar su implementación. En este artículo, presentamos la lista de verificación PRISMA 2020 con 27 ítems, y una lista de verificación ampliada que detalla las recomendaciones en la publicación de cada ítem, la lista de verificación del resumen estructurado PRISMA 2020 y el diagrama de flujo revisado para revisiones sistemáticas.

A declaração PRISMA 2020: diretriz atualizada para relatar revisões sistemáticas / The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews / Declaración PRISMA 2020: una guía actualizada para la publicación de revisiones sistemáticas

RESUMO A declaração dos Principais Itens para Relatar Revisões Sistemáticas e Meta-análises (PRISMA), publicada em 2009, foi desenvolvida para ajudar revisores sistemáticos a relatar de forma transparente por que a revisão foi feita, os métodos empregados e o que os autores encontraram. Na última década, os avanços na metodologia e terminologia de revisões sistemáticas exigiram a atualização da diretriz. A declaração PRISMA 2020 substitui a declaração de 2009 e inclui novas orientações para relato que refletem os avanços nos métodos para identificar, selecionar, avaliar e sintetizar estudos. A estrutura e apresentação dos itens foram modificadas para facilitar a implementação. Neste artigo, apresentamos a lista de checagem PRISMA 2020 de 27 itens, uma lista de checagem expandida que detalha as recomendações para relato para cada item, a lista de checagem PRISMA 2020 para resumos e os fluxogramas revisados para novas revisões e para atualização de revisões.

ABSTRACT The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.

RESUMEN La declaración PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses), publicada en 2009, se diseñó para ayudar a los autores de revisiones sistemáticas a documentar de manera transparente el porqué de la revisión, qué hicieron los autores y qué encontraron. Durante la última década, ha habido muchos avances en la metodología y terminología de las revisiones sistemáticas, lo que ha requerido una actualización de esta guía. La declaración PRISMA 2020 sustituye a la declaración de 2009 e incluye una nueva guía de presentación de las publicaciones que refleja los avances en los métodos para identificar, seleccionar, evaluar y sintetizar estudios. La estructura y la presentación de los ítems ha sido modificada para facilitar su implementación. En este artículo, presentamos la lista de verificación PRISMA 2020 con 27 ítems, y una lista de verificación ampliada que detalla las recomendaciones en la publicación de cada ítem, la lista de verificación del resumen estructurado PRISMA 2020 y el diagrama de flujo revisado para revisiones sistemáticas.

Health and social interventions to restore physical function of older adults post-hip fracture: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: Despite inpatient rehabilitation, many older adults post-hip fracture have difficulty returning to their prefracture levels of function and activity. This scoping review aims to identify interventions for community-dwelling older adults discharged from inpatient rehabilitation and examine the function and activity outcomes associated with these interventions. DESIGN: This scoping review followed Arksey and O'Malley's five-stage framework. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EMBASE and Ageline electronic databases for English-language articles published between January 1946 and January 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included studies with health and social interventions involving community-dwelling older adults and their caregivers after hip fracture and inpatient rehabilitation. The interventions were selected if initiated within 60 days post-hip fracture surgery. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers screened abstracts and full texts and extracted the data based on the inclusion criteria. A third reviewer adjudicated any disagreement and collated the extracted data. RESULTS: Of the 24 studies included in the review, most studies (79%) used exercise-based interventions, over half (63%) included activities of daily living training and/or home assessment and environment modification as intervention components, and three studies used social intervention components. Over half of the interventions (58%) were initiated in the inpatient setting and physiotherapists provided 83% of the interventions. Only seven studies (29%) involved tailored interventions based on the older adults' unique needs and progress in exercise training. Six studies (25%) enrolled patients with cognitive impairment, and only one study examined caregiver-related outcomes. Exercise-based interventions led to improved function and activity outcomes. 29 different outcome measures were reported. CONCLUSION: While exercise-based multicomponent interventions have evidence for improving outcomes in this population, there is a paucity of studies, including social interventions. Further, studies with standardised outcome measures are needed, particularly focusing on supporting caregivers and the recovery of older adults with cognitive impairment.

The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. / Declaración PRISMA 2020: una guía actualizada para la publicación de revisiones sistemáticas.

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews. Full English text available from:www.revespcardiol.org/en.

The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.

The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.

The REPRISE project: protocol for an evaluation of REProducibility and Replicability In Syntheses of Evidence.

BACKGROUND: Investigations of transparency, reproducibility and replicability in science have been directed largely at individual studies. It is just as critical to explore these issues in syntheses of studies, such as systematic reviews, given their influence on decision-making and future research. We aim to explore various aspects relating to the transparency, reproducibility and replicability of several components of systematic reviews with meta-analysis of the effects of health, social, behavioural and educational interventions. METHODS: The REPRISE (REProducibility and Replicability In Syntheses of Evidence) project consists of four studies. We will evaluate the completeness of reporting and sharing of review data, analytic code and other materials in a random sample of 300 systematic reviews of interventions published in 2020 (Study 1). We will survey authors of systematic reviews to explore their views on sharing review data, analytic code and other materials and their understanding of and opinions about replication of systematic reviews (Study 2). We will then evaluate the extent of variation in results when we (a) independently reproduce meta-analyses using the same computational steps and analytic code (if available) as used in the original review (Study 3), and (b) crowdsource teams of systematic reviewers to independently replicate a subset of methods (searches for studies, selection of studies for inclusion, collection of outcome data, and synthesis of results) in a sample of the original reviews; 30 reviews will be replicated by 1 team each and 2 reviews will be replicated by 15 teams (Study 4). DISCUSSION: The REPRISE project takes a systematic approach to determine how reliable systematic reviews of interventions are. We anticipate that results of the REPRISE project will inform strategies to improve the conduct and reporting of future systematic reviews.

Public health measures to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in Canada during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: The main objectives of this study were to synthesise and compare pandemic preparedness strategies issued by the federal and provincial/territorial (P/T) governments in Canada and to assess whether COVID-19 public health (PH) measures were tailored towards priority populations, as defined by relevant social determinants of health. METHODS: This scoping review searched federal and P/T websites on daily COVID-19 pandemic preparedness strategies between 30 January and 30 April 2020. The PROGRESS-Plus equity-lens framework was used to define priority populations. All definitions, policies and guidelines of PH strategies implemented by the federal and P/T governments to reduce risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission were included. PH measures were classified using a modified Public Health Agency of Canada Framework for Canadian Pandemic Influenza Preparedness. RESULTS: A total of 722 COVID-19 PH measures were issued during the study period. Of these, home quarantine (voluntary) (n=13.0%; 94/722) and retail/commerce restrictions (10.9%; n=79/722) were the most common measures introduced. Many of the PH orders, including physical distancing, cancellation of mass gatherings, school closures or retail/commerce restrictions began to be introduced after 11 March 2020. Lifting of some of the PH orders in phases to reopen the economy began in April 2020 (6.5%; n=47/722). The majority (68%, n=491/722) of COVID-19 PH announcements were deemed mandatory, while 32% (n=231/722) were recommendations. Several PH measures (28.0%, n=202/722) targeted a variety of groups at risk of socially produced health inequalities, such as age, religion, occupation and migration status. CONCLUSIONS: Most PH measures centred on limiting contact between people who were not from the same household. PH measures were evolutionary in nature, reflecting new evidence that emerged throughout the pandemic. Although ~30% of all implemented COVID-19 PH measures were tailored towards priority groups, there were still unintended consequences on these populations.

The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.

Matthew Page and co-authors describe PRISMA 2020, an updated reporting guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses.