Methods used to account for caregivers' sex and gender within studies examining the financial burden of caregivers of children and adolescents : Results from a scoping review.

Background: Interest in the financial burden of informal caregivers has been growing. Unfortunately, it remains unclear which method(s) should be used when quantifying this burden. Purpose: We conducted a scoping review aimed at identifying which methods have been used to conduct such work and quantified their performance. We were also interested in examining how sex and gender considerations were considered within selected studies. Data Sources: Using a standardized approach, we identified studies published between 2012 and 2022 that aimed to document the financial burden of caregivers to child and adolescent patients. Our search strategy was applied to the MEDLINE, Embase, CINHAL, and Academic Search Premier databases. Study Selection: Manuscript selection was performed by pairs of reviewers. Data Extraction: Data extraction was performed by one reviewer with a second reviewer performing quality control. Results were reported using a narrative approach. Data Synthesis: We identified 9801 unique citations, of which 200 were included in our review. Selected studies covered various disease area (eg, infection/parasitic diseases [n = 31, 16%]) and included quantitative (n = 180, 90%), qualitative (n = 4, 2%) and mixed study designs (n = 16, 8%). Most studies (n = 182, 91%) used questionnaires/surveys, either alone or in combination with other methods, to assess caregivers' financial burden. Less than half (n = 93, 47%) of studies reported on caregivers' sex and none reported on their gender. Conclusion: We conducted an unrestricted review of published studies examining caregiver's financial burden which allowed us to identify general methodological trends observed in this literature. We believe this work may help improve future studies focusing on this important issue.

Teledentistry for improving access to, and quality of oral health care: A protocol for an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Digital technologies are becoming essential to address and optimize the suboptimal performance of healthcare systems. Teledentistry involves the use of information and communication technology to improve access to oral health care and the quality of oral health care delivery. Several systematic reviews (SRs) have been conducted to synthesize evidence on the effectiveness of teledentistry but with conflicting results. The aim of this review is to comprehensively summarize available SRs and provide evidence on the impact of teledentistry on access to oral care, patients' and oral healthcare providers' outcomes, quality of oral health care and costs. This protocol has been registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO CRD42022373964). Six electronic databases including MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Embase.com), CINAHL (EBSCO), Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Epistemonikos will be searched for SRs of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed reviews evaluating teledentistry modalities involving both patients and/or oral health care providers (OHCPs). We will include studies published in English or French. The outcomes will include patients' outcomes (e.g., access to oral health care, patient-reported outcomes, and patient-reported experiences); patient indicators (e.g., clinical outcomes, adherence to treatment, adverse outcomes and costs); and OHCP indicators (e.g., diagnostic accuracy, barriers and enablers costs and equity). Two independent reviewers will perform data screening, data extraction and will assess the quality of included studies using AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS tools. Data will be synthesized narratively and presented by tables and graphs. We will report any overlap of primary studies in the SRs. A statement on the strength of evidence for each outcome will be provided if possible. This review will inform decision-makers, patients, OHCPs, and researchers on the potential effectiveness, benefits, and challenges of teledentistry and support them in making recommendations for its use. Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, presentations at conferences, and on social media.

Impact of primary health care reforms in Quebec Health Care System: a systematic literature review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: During the last decade the Quebec Public Health Care System (QPHCS) had an important transformation in primary care planning activity. The increase of the service demand together with a significant reduction of supply in primary care may be at risk of reducing access to health care services, with a negative impact on costs and health outcomes. The aims of this systematic literature review are to map and aggregate existing literature and evidence on the primary care provided in Quebec, showing the benefits and limitations associated with the health policies developed in the last two decades, and highlighting areas of improvement. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and CINAHL will be searched for articles and government reports between January 2000 and January 2022 using a prespecified search strategy. This protocol adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis for Protocols and has been registered with PROSPERO. A wide range of electronic databases and grey literature sources will be systematically searched using predefined keywords. The review will include any study design, with the exclusion of protocols, with a focus on the analysis of health care policies, outcomes, costs and management of the primary health care services, published in either English or French languages. Two authors will independently screen titles, abstracts, full-text articles and select studies meeting the inclusion criteria. A customised data extraction form will be used to extract data from the included studies. Results will be presented in tabular format developed iteratively by the research team. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research ethics approval is not required as exclusively secondary data will be used. Review findings will synthesise the characteristics and the impact of the reforms of QPHCS of the last two decades. Findings will therefore be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals, conference presentations and through discussions with stakeholders. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023421145.

Risk of Bias Mitigation for Vulnerable and Diverse Groups in Community-Based Primary Health Care Artificial Intelligence Models: Protocol for a Rapid Review.

BACKGROUND: The current literature identifies several potential benefits of artificial intelligence models for populations' health and health care systems' efficiency. However, there is a lack of understanding on how the risk of bias is considered in the development of primary health care and community health service artificial intelligence algorithms and to what extent they perpetuate or introduce potential biases toward groups that could be considered vulnerable in terms of their characteristics. To the best of our knowledge, no reviews are currently available to identify relevant methods to assess the risk of bias in these algorithms. The primary research question of this review is which strategies can assess the risk of bias in primary health care algorithms toward vulnerable or diverse groups? OBJECTIVE: This review aims to identify relevant methods to assess the risk of bias toward vulnerable or diverse groups in the development or deployment of algorithms in community-based primary health care and mitigation interventions deployed to promote and increase equity, diversity, and inclusion. This review looks at what attempts to mitigate bias have been documented and which vulnerable or diverse groups have been considered. METHODS: A rapid systematic review of the scientific literature will be conducted. In November 2022, an information specialist developed a specific search strategy based on the main concepts of our primary review question in 4 relevant databases in the last 5 years. We completed the search strategy in December 2022, and 1022 sources were identified. Since February 2023, two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts on the Covidence systematic review software. Conflicts are solved through consensus and discussion with a senior researcher. We include all studies on methods developed or tested to assess the risk of bias in algorithms that are relevant in community-based primary health care. RESULTS: In early May 2023, almost 47% (479/1022) of the titles and abstracts have been screened. We completed this first stage in May 2023. In June and July 2023, two reviewers will independently apply the same criteria to full texts, and all exclusion motives will be recorded. Data from selected studies will be extracted using a validated grid in August and analyzed in September 2023. Results will be presented using structured qualitative narrative summaries and submitted for publication by the end of 2023. CONCLUSIONS: The approach to identifying methods and target populations of this review is primarily qualitative. However, we will consider a meta-analysis if quantitative data and results are sufficient. This review will develop structured qualitative summaries of strategies to mitigate bias toward vulnerable populations and diverse groups in artificial intelligence models. This could be useful to researchers and other stakeholders to identify potential sources of bias in algorithms and try to reduce or eliminate them. TRIAL REGISTRATION: OSF Registries qbph8; https://osf.io/qbph8. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/46684.

A Systematic Review of Methods Used for Confounding Adjustment in Observational Economic Evaluations in Cardiology Conducted between 2013 and 2017.

Background. Observational economic evaluations (i.e., economic evaluations in which treatment allocation is not randomized) are prone to confounding bias. Prior reviews published in 2013 have shown that adjusting for confounding is poorly done, if done at all. Although these reviews raised awareness on the issues, it is unclear if their results improved the methodological quality of future work. We therefore aimed to investigate whether and how confounding was accounted for in recently published observational economic evaluations in the field of cardiology. Methods. We performed a systematic review of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and PsycInfo databases using a set of Medical Subject Headings and keywords covering topics in "observational economic evaluations in health within humans" and "cardiovascular diseases." Any study published in either English or French between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2017, addressing our search criteria was eligible for inclusion in our review. Our protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018112391). Results. Forty-two (0.6%) out of 7523 unique citations met our inclusion criteria. Fewer than half of the selected studies adjusted for confounding (n = 19 [45.2%]). Of those that adjusted for confounding, propensity score matching (n = 8 [42.1%]) and other matching-based approaches were favored (n = 8 [42.1%]). Our results also highlighted that most authors who adjusted for confounding rarely justified their methodological choices. Conclusion. Our results indicate that adjustment for confounding is often ignored when conducting an observational economic evaluation. Continued knowledge translation efforts aimed at improving researchers' knowledge regarding confounding bias and methods aimed at addressing this issue are required and should be supported by journal editors.