Reporting of equity in observational epidemiology: A methodological review.

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

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

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

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.

Pharmaceutical policies: effects of regulating drug insurance schemes.

BACKGROUND: Drug insurance schemes are systems that provide access to medicines on a prepaid basis and could potentially improve access to essential medicines and reduce out-of-pocket payments for vulnerable populations. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects on drug use, drug expenditure, healthcare utilisation and healthcare outcomes of alternative policies for regulating drug insurance schemes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, nine other databases, and two trials registers between November 2014 and September 2020, including a citation search for included studies on 15 September 2021 using Web of Science. We screened reference lists of all the relevant reports that we retrieved and reports from the Background section. Authors of relevant papers, relevant organisations, and discussion lists were contacted to identify additional studies, including unpublished and ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include randomised trials, non-randomised trials, interrupted time-series studies (including controlled ITS [CITS] and repeated measures [RM] studies), and controlled before-after (CBA) studies. Two review authors independently assessed the search results and reference lists of relevant reports, retrieved the full text of potentially relevant references and independently applied the inclusion criteria to those studies. We resolved disagreements by discussion, and when necessary by including a third review author. We excluded studies of the following pharmaceutical policies covered in other Cochrane Reviews: those that determined how decisions were made about which conditions or drugs were covered; those that placed restrictions on reimbursement for drugs that were covered; and those that regulated out-of-pocket payments for drugs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data from the included studies and assessed risk of bias for each study, with disagreements being resolved by consensus. We used the criteria suggested by  Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC)  to assess the risk of bias of included studies. For randomised trials, non-randomised trials and controlled before-after studies, we planned to report relative effects. For dichotomous outcomes, we reported the risk ratio (RR) when possible and adjusted for baseline differences in the outcome measures. For interrupted time series and controlled interrupted time-series studies, we computed changes along two dimensions: change in level; and change in slope. We undertook a structured synthesis following the EPOC guidance on this topic, describing the range of effects found in the studies for each category of outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 58 studies that met the inclusion criteria (25 interrupted time-series studies and 33 controlled before-after studies). Most of the studies (54) assessed a single policy implemented in the United States (US) healthcare system: Medicare Part D. The other four assessed other drug insurance schemes from Canada and the US, but only one of them provided analysable data for inclusion in the quantitative synthesis. The introduction of drug insurance schemes may increase prescription drug use (low-certainty evidence). On the other hand, Medicare Part D may decrease drug expenditure measured as both out-of-pocket spending and total drug spending (low-certainty evidence). Regarding healthcare utilisation, drug insurance policies (such as Medicare Part D) may lead to a small increase in visits to the emergency department. However, it is uncertain whether this type of policy increases or decreases hospital admissions or outpatient visits by beneficiaries of the scheme because the certainty of the evidence was very low. Likewise, it is uncertain if the policy increases or reduces health outcomes such as mortality because the certainty of the evidence was very low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of drug insurance schemes such as Medicare Part D in the US health system may increase prescription drug use and may decrease out-of-pocket payments by the beneficiaries of the scheme and total drug expenditures. It may also lead to a small increase in visits to the emergency department by the beneficiaries of the policy. Its effects on other healthcare utilisation outcomes and on health outcomes are uncertain because of the very low certainty of the evidence. The applicability of this evidence to settings outside US healthcare is limited.

[Perceptions and attitudes of Chilean primary care physicians toward clinical practice guidelines]. / Percepciones y actitudes de médicos de atención primaria respecto de las Guías de Práctica Clínicas en el Régimen de Garantías en Salud.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) promote better quality and equity in health care and potentially they could improve patients' outcomes. However, their implementation is hindered by a number of factors including some related to health care professionals. AIM: To assess the perceptions and attitudes of primary care physicians regarding CPGs developed by the Chilean Ministry of Health in the context of the Health Sector Reform. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An adaptation of the survey "Knowledge, perceptions and attitudes towards Clinical Practice Guidelines" was sent to 1,264 primary care physicians in Chile and answered completely by 354. The analysis assessed the attitudes towards CPG, their use in primary care and their relationship with socio demographic features of respondents. RESULTS: Eighty two percent of respondents reviewed the flowcharts of the guidelines, 85% consulted their online version. The classification of evidence levels and the strength of recommendations generated a high level of confidence with the guidelines in 70 and 64% of respondents. Eighty five percent considered that CPG could help to standardize clinical practice. The most relevant barrier hindering CPG use was the lack of a brief, simple and easy to access format in 63% of respondents. The three dimensions of the theory of planned behavior (attitude toward behavior, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control) were associated with a greater frequency of guideline use. A higher age and not being Chilean were associated with a lower frequency of use. CONCLUSIONS: The identified factors associated with CPG use should be considered in future guideline design.

Percepciones y actitudes de médicos de atención primaria respecto de las Guías de Práctica Clínicas en el Régimen de Garantías en Salud / Perceptions and attitudes of Chilean primary care physicians toward clinical practice guidelines

Background: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) promote better quality and equity in health care and potentially they could improve patients' outcomes. However, their implementation is hindered by a number of factors including some related to health care professionals. Aim: To assess the perceptions and attitudes of primary care physicians regarding CPGs developed by the Chilean Ministry of Health in the context of the Health Sector Reform. Material and Methods: An adaptation of the survey "Knowledge, perceptions and attitudes towards Clinical Practice Guidelines" was sent to 1,264 primary care physicians in Chile and answered completely by 354. The analysis assessed the attitudes towards CPG, their use in primary care and their relationship with socio demographic features of respondents. Results: Eighty two percent of respondents reviewed the flowcharts of the guidelines, 85% consulted their online version. The classification of evidence levels and the strength of recommendations generated a high level of confidence with the guidelines in 70 and 64% of respondents. Eighty five percent considered that CPG could help to standardize clinical practice. The most relevant barrier hindering CPG use was the lack of a brief, simple and easy to access format in 63% of respondents. The three dimensions of the theory of planned behavior (attitude toward behavior, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control) were associated with a greater frequency of guideline use. A higher age and not being Chilean were associated with a lower frequency of use. Conclusions: The identified factors associated with CPG use should be considered in future guideline design.

Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series-paper 2: methods for question formulation, searching, and protocol development for qualitative evidence synthesis.

This paper updates previous Cochrane guidance on question formulation, searching, and protocol development, reflecting recent developments in methods for conducting qualitative evidence syntheses to inform Cochrane intervention reviews. Examples are used to illustrate how decisions about boundaries for a review are formed via an iterative process of constructing lines of inquiry and mapping the available information to ascertain whether evidence exists to answer questions related to effectiveness, implementation, feasibility, appropriateness, economic evidence, and equity. The process of question formulation allows reviewers to situate the topic in relation to how it informs and explains effectiveness, using the criterion of meaningfulness, appropriateness, feasibility, and implementation. Questions related to complex questions and interventions can be structured by drawing on an increasingly wide range of question frameworks. Logic models and theoretical frameworks are useful tools for conceptually mapping the literature to illustrate the complexity of the phenomenon of interest. Furthermore, protocol development may require iterative question formulation and searching. Consequently, the final protocol may function as a guide rather than a prescriptive route map, particularly in qualitative reviews that ask more exploratory and open-ended questions.

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.

Governance arrangements for health systems in low-income countries: an overview of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Governance arrangements include changes in rules or processes that determine authority and accountability for health policies, organisations, commercial products and health professionals, as well as the involvement of stakeholders in decision-making. Changes in governance arrangements can affect health and related goals in numerous ways, generally through changes in authority, accountability, openness, participation and coherence. A broad overview of the findings of systematic reviews can help policymakers, their technical support staff and other stakeholders to identify strategies for addressing problems and improving the governance of their health systems. OBJECTIVES: To provide an overview of the available evidence from up-to-date systematic reviews about the effects of governance arrangements for health systems in low-income countries. Secondary objectives include identifying needs and priorities for future evaluations and systematic reviews on governance arrangements and informing refinements of the framework for governance arrangements outlined in the overview. METHODS: We searched Health Systems Evidence in November 2010 and PDQ Evidence up to 17 December 2016 for systematic reviews. We did not apply any date, language or publication status limitations in the searches. We included well-conducted systematic reviews of studies that assessed the effects of governance arrangements on patient outcomes (health and health behaviours), the quality or utilisation of healthcare services, resource use (health expenditures, healthcare provider costs, out-of-pocket payments, cost-effectiveness), healthcare provider outcomes (such as sick leave), or social outcomes (such as poverty, employment) and that were published after April 2005. We excluded reviews with limitations that were important enough to compromise the reliability of the findings of the review. Two overview authors independently screened reviews, extracted data and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. We prepared SUPPORT Summaries for eligible reviews, including key messages, 'Summary of findings' tables (using GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence) and assessments of the relevance of findings to low-income countries. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 7272 systematic reviews and included 21 of them in this overview (19 primary reviews and 2 supplementary reviews). We focus here on the results of the 19 primary reviews, one of which had important methodological limitations. The other 18 were reliable (with only minor limitations).We grouped the governance arrangements addressed in the reviews into five categories: authority and accountability for health policies (three reviews); authority and accountability for organisations (two reviews); authority and accountability for commercial products (three reviews); authority and accountability for health professionals (seven reviews); and stakeholder involvement (four reviews).Overall, we found desirable effects for the following interventions on at least one outcome, with moderate- or high-certainty evidence and no moderate- or high-certainty evidence of undesirable effects. Decision-making about what is covered by health insurance- Placing restrictions on the medicines reimbursed by health insurance systems probably decreases the use of and spending on these medicines (moderate-certainty evidence). Stakeholder participation in policy and organisational decisions- Participatory learning and action groups for women probably improve newborn survival (moderate-certainty evidence).- Consumer involvement in preparing patient information probably improves the quality of the information and patient knowledge (moderate-certainty evidence). Disclosing performance information to patients and the public- Disclosing performance data on hospital quality to the public probably encourages hospitals to implement quality improvement activities (moderate-certainty evidence).- Disclosing performance data on individual healthcare providers to the public probably leads people to select providers that have better quality ratings (moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Investigators have evaluated a wide range of governance arrangements that are relevant for low-income countries using sound systematic review methods. These strategies have been targeted at different levels in health systems, and studies have assessed a range of outcomes. Moderate-certainty evidence shows desirable effects (with no undesirable effects) for some interventions. However, there are important gaps in the availability of systematic reviews and primary studies for the all of the main categories of governance arrangements.

Financial arrangements for health systems in low-income countries: an overview of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: One target of the Sustainable Development Goals is to achieve "universal health coverage, including financial risk protection, access to quality essential health-care services and access to safe, effective, quality and affordable essential medicines and vaccines for all". A fundamental concern of governments in striving for this goal is how to finance such a health system. This concern is very relevant for low-income countries. OBJECTIVES: To provide an overview of the evidence from up-to-date systematic reviews about the effects of financial arrangements for health systems in low-income countries. Secondary objectives include identifying needs and priorities for future evaluations and systematic reviews on financial arrangements, and informing refinements in the framework for financial arrangements presented in the overview. METHODS: We searched Health Systems Evidence in November 2010 and PDQ-Evidence up to 17 December 2016 for systematic reviews. We did not apply any date, language, or publication status limitations in the searches. We included well-conducted systematic reviews of studies that assessed the effects of financial arrangements on patient outcomes (health and health behaviours), the quality or utilisation of healthcare services, resource use, healthcare provider outcomes (such as sick leave), or social outcomes (such as poverty, employment, or financial burden of patients, e.g. out-of-pocket payment, catastrophic disease expenditure) and that were published after April 2005. We excluded reviews with limitations important enough to compromise the reliability of the findings. Two overview authors independently screened reviews, extracted data, and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. We prepared SUPPORT Summaries for eligible reviews, including key messages, 'Summary of findings' tables (using GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence), and assessments of the relevance of findings to low-income countries. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 7272 reviews and included 15 in this overview, on: collection of funds (2 reviews), insurance schemes (1 review), purchasing of services (1 review), recipient incentives (6 reviews), and provider incentives (5 reviews). The reviews were published between 2008 and 2015; focused on 13 subcategories; and reported results from 276 studies: 115 (42%) randomised trials, 11 (4%) non-randomised trials, 23 (8%) controlled before-after studies, 51 (19%) interrupted time series, 9 (3%) repeated measures, and 67 (24%) other non-randomised studies. Forty-three per cent (119/276) of the studies included in the reviews took place in low- and middle-income countries. Collection of funds: the effects of changes in user fees on utilisation and equity are uncertain (very low-certainty evidence). It is also uncertain whether aid delivered under the Paris Principles (ownership, alignment, harmonisation, managing for results, and mutual accountability) improves health outcomes compared to aid delivered without conforming to those principles (very low-certainty evidence). Insurance schemes: community-based health insurance may increase service utilisation (low-certainty evidence), but the effects on health outcomes are uncertain (very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether social health insurance improves utilisation of health services or health outcomes (very low-certainty evidence). Purchasing of services: it is uncertain whether increasing salaries of public sector healthcare workers improves the quantity or quality of their work (very low-certainty evidence). Recipient incentives: recipient incentives may improve adherence to long-term treatments (low-certainty evidence), but it is uncertain whether they improve patient outcomes. One-time recipient incentives probably improve patient return for start or continuation of treatment (moderate-certainty evidence) and may improve return for tuberculosis test readings (low-certainty evidence). However, incentives may not improve completion of tuberculosis prophylaxis, and it is uncertain whether they improve completion of treatment for active tuberculosis. Conditional cash transfer programmes probably lead to an increase in service utilisation (moderate-certainty evidence), but their effects on health outcomes are uncertain. Vouchers may improve health service utilisation (low-certainty evidence), but the effects on health outcomes are uncertain (very low-certainty evidence). Introducing a restrictive cap may decrease use of medicines for symptomatic conditions and overall use of medicines, may decrease insurers' expenditures on medicines (low-certainty evidence), and has uncertain effects on emergency department use, hospitalisations, and use of outpatient care (very low-certainty evidence). Reference pricing, maximum pricing, and index pricing for drugs have mixed effects on drug expenditures by patients and insurers as well as the use of brand and generic drugs. Provider incentives: the effects of provider incentives are uncertain (very low-certainty evidence), including: the effects of provider incentives on the quality of care provided by primary care physicians or outpatient referrals from primary to secondary care, incentives for recruiting and retaining health professionals to serve in remote areas, and the effects of pay-for-performance on provider performance, the utilisation of services, patient outcomes, or resource use in low-income countries. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Research based on sound systematic review methods has evaluated numerous financial arrangements relevant to low-income countries, targeting different levels of the health systems and assessing diverse outcomes. However, included reviews rarely reported social outcomes, resource use, equity impacts, or undesirable effects. We also identified gaps in primary research because of uncertainty about applicability of the evidence to low-income countries. Financial arrangements for which the effects are uncertain include external funding (aid), caps and co-payments, pay-for-performance, and provider incentives. Further studies evaluating the effects of these arrangements are needed in low-income countries. Systematic reviews should include all outcomes that are relevant to decision-makers and to people affected by changes in financial arrangements.

Delivery arrangements for health systems in low-income countries: an overview of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Delivery arrangements include changes in who receives care and when, who provides care, the working conditions of those who provide care, coordination of care amongst different providers, where care is provided, the use of information and communication technology to deliver care, and quality and safety systems. How services are delivered can have impacts on the effectiveness, efficiency and equity of health systems. This broad overview of the findings of systematic reviews can help policymakers and other stakeholders identify strategies for addressing problems and improve the delivery of services. OBJECTIVES: To provide an overview of the available evidence from up-to-date systematic reviews about the effects of delivery arrangements for health systems in low-income countries. Secondary objectives include identifying needs and priorities for future evaluations and systematic reviews on delivery arrangements and informing refinements of the framework for delivery arrangements outlined in the review. METHODS: We searched Health Systems Evidence in November 2010 and PDQ-Evidence up to 17 December 2016 for systematic reviews. We did not apply any date, language or publication status limitations in the searches. We included well-conducted systematic reviews of studies that assessed the effects of delivery arrangements on patient outcomes (health and health behaviours), the quality or utilisation of healthcare services, resource use, healthcare provider outcomes (such as sick leave), or social outcomes (such as poverty or employment) and that were published after April 2005. We excluded reviews with limitations important enough to compromise the reliability of the findings. Two overview authors independently screened reviews, extracted data, and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. We prepared SUPPORT Summaries for eligible reviews, including key messages, 'Summary of findings' tables (using GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence), and assessments of the relevance of findings to low-income countries. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 7272 systematic reviews and included 51 of them in this overview. We judged 6 of the 51 reviews to have important methodological limitations and the other 45 to have only minor limitations. We grouped delivery arrangements into eight categories. Some reviews provided more than one comparison and were in more than one category. Across these categories, the following intervention were effective; that is, they have desirable effects on at least one outcome with moderate- or high-certainty evidence and no moderate- or high-certainty evidence of undesirable effects. Who receives care and when: queuing strategies and antenatal care to groups of mothers. Who provides care: lay health workers for caring for people with hypertension, lay health workers to deliver care for mothers and children or infectious diseases, lay health workers to deliver community-based neonatal care packages, midlevel health professionals for abortion care, social support to pregnant women at risk, midwife-led care for childbearing women, non-specialist providers in mental health and neurology, and physician-nurse substitution. Coordination of care: hospital clinical pathways, case management for people living with HIV and AIDS, interactive communication between primary care doctors and specialists, hospital discharge planning, adding a service to an existing service and integrating delivery models, referral from primary to secondary care, physician-led versus nurse-led triage in emergency departments, and team midwifery. Where care is provided: high-volume institutions, home-based care (with or without multidisciplinary team) for people living with HIV and AIDS, home-based management of malaria, home care for children with acute physical conditions, community-based interventions for childhood diarrhoea and pneumonia, out-of-facility HIV and reproductive health services for youth, and decentralised HIV care. Information and communication technology: mobile phone messaging for patients with long-term illnesses, mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments, mobile phone messaging to promote adherence to antiretroviral therapy, women carrying their own case notes in pregnancy, interventions to improve childhood vaccination. Quality and safety systems: decision support with clinical information systems for people living with HIV/AIDS. Complex interventions (cutting across delivery categories and other health system arrangements): emergency obstetric referral interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: A wide range of strategies have been evaluated for improving delivery arrangements in low-income countries, using sound systematic review methods in both Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews. These reviews have assessed a range of outcomes. Most of the available evidence focuses on who provides care, where care is provided and coordination of care. For all the main categories of delivery arrangements, we identified gaps in primary research related to uncertainty about the applicability of the evidence to low-income countries, low- or very low-certainty evidence or a lack of studies.

Advancing the field of health systems research synthesis.

Those planning, managing and working in health systems worldwide routinely need to make decisions regarding strategies to improve health care and promote equity. Systematic reviews of different kinds can be of great help to these decision-makers, providing actionable evidence at every step in the decision-making process. Although there is growing recognition of the importance of systematic reviews to inform both policy decisions and produce guidance for health systems, a number of important methodological and evidence uptake challenges remain and better coordination of existing initiatives is needed. The Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research, housed within the World Health Organization, convened an Advisory Group on Health Systems Research (HSR) Synthesis to bring together different stakeholders interested in HSR synthesis and its use in decision-making processes. We describe the rationale of the Advisory Group and the six areas of its work and reflects on its role in advancing the field of HSR synthesis. We argue in favour of greater cross-institutional collaborations, as well as capacity strengthening in low- and middle-income countries, to advance the science and practice of health systems research synthesis. We advocate for the integration of quasi-experimental study designs in reviews of effectiveness of health systems intervention and reforms. The Advisory Group also recommends adopting priority-setting approaches for HSR synthesis and increasing the use of findings from systematic reviews in health policy and decision-making.

Evidence briefs and deliberative dialogues: perceptions and intentions to act on what was learnt.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and implement a method for the evaluation of "evidence briefs" and "deliberative dialogues" that could be applied to comparative studies of similar strategies used in the support of evidence-informed policy-making. METHODS: Participants who read evidence briefs and attended deliberative dialogues in Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Uganda and Zambia were surveyed before the start of the dialogues - to collect their views on pre-circulated evidence briefs - and at the end of the dialogues - to collect their views on the dialogues. The respondents' assessments of the briefs and dialogues and the respondents' intentions to act on what they had learned were then investigated in descriptive statistical analyses and regression models. FINDINGS: Of the 530 individuals who read the evidence briefs and attended dialogues, 304 (57%) and 303 (57%) completed questionnaires about the briefs and dialogues, respectively. Respondents viewed the evidence briefs and deliberative dialogues - as well as each of their key features - very favourably, regardless of the country, issue or group involved. Overall, "not concluding with recommendations" and "not aiming for a consensus" were identified as the least helpful features of the briefs and dialogues, respectively. Respondents generally reported strong intentions to act on what they had learnt. CONCLUSION: Although some aspects of their design may need to be improved or, at least, explained and justified to policy-makers and stakeholders, evidence briefs and deliberative dialogues appear to be highly regarded and to lead to intentions to act.

Health equity: evidence synthesis and knowledge translation methods.

BACKGROUND: At the Rio Summit in 2011 on Social Determinants of Health, the global community recognized a pressing need to take action on reducing health inequities. This requires an improved evidence base on the effects of national and international policies on health inequities. Although systematic reviews are recognized as an important source for evidence-informed policy, they have been criticized for failing to assess effects on health equity. METHODS: This article summarizes guidance on both conducting systematic reviews with a focus on health equity and on methods to translate their findings to different audiences. This guidance was developed based on a series of methodology meetings, previous guidance, a recently developed reporting guideline for equity-focused systematic reviews (PRISMA-Equity 2012) and a systematic review of methods to assess health equity in systematic reviews. RESULTS: We make ten recommendations for conducting equity-focused systematic reviews; and five considerations for knowledge translation. Illustrative examples of equity-focused reviews are provided where these methods have been used. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the recommendations in this article is one step toward monitoring the impact of national and international policies and programs on health equity, as recommended by the 2011 World Conference on Social Determinants of Health.

Guías de Práctica Clínica en el Régimen de Garantías en Salud: una evaluación crítica de su calidad / Clinical practice guidelines in the Chilean health sector reform: a critical assessment of their quality

Background: Clinical practice guidelines are widely used as tools for improving quality of health care. However, there is increasing concern about limitations in their development process conducting to inconsistent recommendations. During the last decade the use of guidelines has been promoted in the Chilean health system, but their quality has not yet been evaluated systematically. Aim: To assess the quality of clinical practice guidelines developed by the Chilean guidelines program. Material and Methods: All the guidelines developed by the Chilean program between 2005 and 2009 were retrieved from the Ministry of Health website. Each guideline was assessed independently by three appraisers using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument. Standardized scores were obtained for each dimension in each guideline and across the whole set of guidelines. Results: Sixty guidelines were assessed. The 'scope and purpose' dimension scored significantly higher (mean 82.2%, range: 25.9%-100%) and the 'applicability' dimension scored significantly lower (mean 23.3%, range: 0%-72.4%) than any other dimension. 'Publication date' was the only variable consistently associated with dimension scores. Conclusions: The quality of Chilean clinical practice guidelines is far from ideal. Although they seem to have a strong sense of purpose and vision, methodological procedures should be strengthened, especially those related to applicability.

[Clinical practice guidelines in the Chilean health sector reform: a critical assessment of their quality]. / Guías de Práctica Clínica en el Régimen de Garantías en Salud: una evaluación crítica de su calidad.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines are widely used as tools for improving quality of health care. However, there is increasing concern about limitations in their development process conducting to inconsistent recommendations. During the last decade the use of guidelines has been promoted in the Chilean health system, but their quality has not yet been evaluated systematically. AIM: To assess the quality of clinical practice guidelines developed by the Chilean guidelines program. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All the guidelines developed by the Chilean program between 2005 and 2009 were retrieved from the Ministry of Health website. Each guideline was assessed independently by three appraisers using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument. Standardized scores were obtained for each dimension in each guideline and across the whole set of guidelines. RESULTS: Sixty guidelines were assessed. The 'scope and purpose' dimension scored significantly higher (mean 82.2%, range: 25.9%-100%) and the 'applicability' dimension scored significantly lower (mean 23.3%, range: 0%-72.4%) than any other dimension. 'Publication date' was the only variable consistently associated with dimension scores. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of Chilean clinical practice guidelines is far from ideal. Although they seem to have a strong sense of purpose and vision, methodological procedures should be strengthened, especially those related to applicability.

A cost-effectiveness evaluation of a home visit program for adolescent mothers.

A home visit intervention program for adolescents throughout their pregnancy and during the early stages of motherhood was evaluated. The participants (N = 90) were part of a larger group of adolescents treated in two health centers in a poor neighborhood in Santiago, Chile. The program was carried out by volunteer community health monitors and evaluated through an experimental, randomized, controlled clinical trial. Cost-effectiveness was examined in comparison with standard health care. Results show higher scores for the intervention group on the mothers' mental health and nutritional state, as well as on the children's levels of linguistic development.

Supporting the delivery of cost-effective interventions in primary health-care systems in low-income and middle-income countries: an overview of systematic reviews.

Strengthening health systems is a key challenge to improving the delivery of cost-effective interventions in primary health care and achieving the vision of the Alma-Ata Declaration. Effective governance, financial and delivery arrangements within health systems, and effective implementation strategies are needed urgently in low-income and middle-income countries. This overview summarises the evidence from systematic reviews of health systems arrangements and implementation strategies, with a particular focus on evidence relevant to primary health care in such settings. Although evidence is sparse, there are several promising health systems arrangements and implementation strategies for strengthening primary health care. However, their introduction must be accompanied by rigorous evaluations. The evidence base needs urgently to be strengthened, synthesised, and taken into account in policy and practice, particularly for the benefit of those who have been excluded from the health care advances of recent decades.

The Latin American Ongoing Clinical Trial Register (LATINREC)

Debido a los sesgos que afectan a la publicación de ensayos clínicos y sus resultados, los estudios cuyos resultados son positivos son más fáciles de encontrar que los que tienen resultados sin significación estadística y a ello se debe que los primeros estén sobrerrepresentados. Para contrarrestar este tipo de sesgo se ha propuesto ingresar en un registro toda investigación, desde sus comienzos. No obstante, estos registros se encuentran en distintas fases de evolución, especialmente en países en desarrollo, de tal manera que la Red Cochrane Iberoamericana, parte de la Colaboración Cochrane, ha establecido el Registro Latinoamericano de Ensayos Clínicos en Curso (LATINREC, por Latin American Clinical Trial Registry) con la idea de facilitar el registro de los datos contenidos en el protocolo de todo ensayo clínico que se esté llevando a cabo en un momento dado y poner esa información a la disposición del público. El LATINREC, que viene a respaldar los objetivos de la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS), representa un intento por reducir la duplicación de trabajo y el financiamiento poco equitativo de la investigación sobre enfermedades rezagadas al olvido; por evitar que se efectúen investigaciones sobre asuntos de poca cuantía o que se midan resultados poco útiles; y por fomentar las prácticas éticas y la transparencia. Se han detectado algunos obstáculos mayores que hasta ahora han impedido crear un registro único y común de ensayos clínicos. Con el fin de franquearlos, LATINREC será un registro gratuito que permitirá hacer búsquedas y que se ceñirá a la Plataforma Internacional de Registro de Ensayos Clínicos (ICTRP) de la OMS. Además, LATINREC permitirá que los investigadores ingresen en el registro cualquier modificación del protocolo, así como los resultados preliminares. LATINREC ofrecerá grandes ventajas para los consumidores, el gobierno, los profesionales de la salud pública y la industria farmacéutica al incrementar la accesibilidad de la información y la participación en los ensayos clínicos. La disponibilidad de información objetiva acerca de todo ensayo clínico que se inicie ayudará a garantizar que todos tengan libre acceso a los conocimientos generados.