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.

Embracing unity at OMERACT: Valuing equity, promoting diversity, fostering inclusivity.

OBJECTIVE: To increase awareness and understanding of the principles of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusivity (EDI) within Outcome Measures in Rheumatology's (OMERACT) members. For this, we aimed to obtain ideas on how to promote and foster these principles within the organization and determine the diversity of the current membership in order to focus future efforts. METHODS: We held a plenary workshop session at OMERACT 2023 with roundtable discussions on barriers and solutions to increased diversity within OMERACT. We conducted an anonymous, web-based survey of members to record characteristics including population group, gender identity, education level, age, and ability. RESULTS: The workshop generated ideas to increase diversity of participants across the themes of building relationships [12 topics], materials and methods [5 topics], and conference-specific [6 topics]. Four hundred and seven people responded to the survey (25 % response rate). The majority of respondents were White (75 %), female (61 %), university-educated (94 %), Christian (42 %), spoke English at home (60 %), aged 35 to 55 years (50 %), and did not report a disability (64 %). CONCLUSION: OMERACT is committed to improving its diversity. Next steps include strategic recruitment of members to the EDI working group, drafting an EDI mission statement centering equity and inclusivity in the organization, and developing guidance for the OMERACT Handbook to help all working groups create actionable plans for promoting EDI principles.

Patient- and family-centred care transition interventions for adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs.

Although patient centredness is part of providing high-quality health care, little is known about the effectiveness of care transition interventions that involve patients and their families on readmissions to the hospital or emergency visits post-discharge. This systematic review (SR) aimed to examine the evidence on patient- and family-centred (PFC) care transition interventions and evaluate their effectiveness on adults' hospital readmissions and emergency department (ED) visits after discharge. Searches of Medline, CINAHL, and Embase databases were conducted from the earliest available online year of indexing up to and including 14 March 2021. The studies included: (i) were about care transitions (hospital to home) of ≥18-year-old patients; (ii) had components of patient-centred care and care transition frameworks; (iii) reported on one or more outcomes were among hospital readmissions and ED visits after discharge; and (iv) were cluster-, pilot- or randomized-controlled trials published in English or French. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were completed by two independent reviewers. A narrative synthesis was performed, and pooled odd ratios, standardized mean differences, and mean differences were calculated using a random-effects meta-analysis. Of the 10,021 citations screened, 50 trials were included in the SR and 44 were included in the meta-analyses. Care transition intervention types included health assessment, symptom and disease management, medication reconciliation, discharge planning, risk management, complication detection, and emotional support. Results showed that PFC care transition interventions significantly reduced the risk of hospital readmission rates compared to usual care [incident rate ratio (IRR), 0.86; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.75-0.98; I2 = 73%] regardless of time elapsed since discharge. However, these same interventions had minimal impact on the risk of ED visit rates compared to usual care group regardless of time passed after discharge (IRR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.85-1.18; I2 = 29%). PFC care transition interventions containing a greater number of patient-centred care (IRR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57-0.94; I2 = 59%) and care transition components (IRR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.64-0.91; I2 = 4%) significantly decreased the risk of patients being readmitted. However, these interventions did not significantly increase the risk of patients visiting the ED after discharge (IRR, 1.54; CI 95%, 0.91-2.61). Future interventions should focus on patients' and families' values, beliefs, needs, preferences, race, age, gender, and social determinants of health to improve the quality of adults' care transitions.

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.

Validation studies of rheumatoid arthritis patient-reported outcome measures in populations at risk for inequity: A systematic review and analysis using the OMERACT summary of measurement properties equity table.

BACKGROUND: Existing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) may be limited in their applicability to populations that are at risk for inequities. We conducted a systematic review to identify and rate evidence in the validation studies for PROMs in populations at risk for inequity. METHODS: A systematic review of MEDLINE and EMBASE was completed. The search strategy was developed to identify measurement property studies for PROMs of interest (selected pain, disease activity, global evaluation and quality of life scales) in patients with RA. We identified experimental, observational, and qualitative studies reporting analysis of feasibility, construct validity and discriminant ability metrics for populations at risk for inequity by various factors including race, ethnicity, culture or language; employment status; sex and gender identity; education level; socioeconomic status; social support; age; health literacy and disability. These were rated based on the OMERACT Summary of Measurement Properties Equity table. RESULTS: From 19,786 titles and abstracts screened, we identified 14 unique studies reporting validation metrics for pain (n = 3), DAS28-ESR or DAS28-CRP (n = 2), ACR20 (n = 1), patient global assessment (n = 2), EQ5D (n = 4), and PROMIS® (n = 3) by race (n = 10 studies), age (n = 6 studies), sex (n = 5 studies), education level (n = 2 studies), and disability, literacy, employment status, social support level and socioeconomic status (n = 1 study each). Five studies reported on feasibility, 12 reported construct validity metrics, and 4 studies reported on discriminant validity metrics. All studies by culture or language were rated as having good measurement property metrics. There was limited assessment of measurement property metrics for other populations at risk for inequity. CONCLUSION: Our study highlights important gaps in patient representation in rheumatology research for accepted outcome measures. New outcome measures being developed for research purposes and clinical practice should ensure and report representation of patients from populations at risk for inequities in the testing of metrics of feasibility, construct validity and discriminant ability metrics.

Development of an extension of the OMERACT Summary of Measurement Properties table to capture equity considerations: SOMP-Equity.

OBJECTIVE: To develop an equity extension of the OMERACT Summary of Measurement Properties (SOMP) Table, SOMP Equity to describe whether a patient reported outcome measure (PROM) works well among patients of diverse languages and cultures, education levels, and other population characteristics. METHODS: We used the PROGRESS-Plus framework to categorize equity characteristics assessed in trials of PROM. PROGRESS refers to Place of residence, Race/ethnicity/culture/language, Occupation, Gender/sex, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status, and Social Capital, while the 'plus' captures additional characteristics, such as age. We pilot tested our SOMP Equity Extension using the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) as a prototypical PROM. RESULTS: The SOMP Equity Extension retains the same columns as the original OMERACT SOMP (domain match, feasibility, construct validity, test-retest reliability, longitudinal construct validity, clinical trial discrimination, thresholds of meaning) but uses the PROGRESS-Plus characteristics as rows. We found several examples of studies of the HAQ which had assessed one or more PROGRESS-Plus characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: The most commonly reported equity considerations were related to language. OMERACT Equity virtual meeting participants were polled and they indicated that the SOMP Equity Extension is useful for highlighting and tracking equity considerations for OMERACT Core Outcome Measurement Instruments.

Improving benefit-harm assessment of glucocorticoid therapy incorporating the patient perspective: The OMERACT glucocorticoid core domain set.

OBJECTIVE: Our primary objective was to develop an Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) core domain set to capture the impact of glucocorticoids (GC), both positive and negative, on patients with Rheumatic conditions. METHODS: The OMERACT Filter 2.1 was used to guide core domain selection. Systematic literature reviews, qualitative studies and quantitative surveys were conducted by the OMERACT GC Impact working group to identify candidate domains for a core domain set. A summary of prior work and Delphi exercise were presented at the OMERACT 2020 virtual GC workshop. A proposed GC Impact core domain set derived from this work was presented for discussion in facilitated breakout groups. Participants voted on the proposed GC Impact core domain set. RESULTS: 113 people, including 23 patient research partners, participated in two virtual workshops conducted at different times on the same day. The proposed mandatory domains to be evaluated in clinical trials involving GCs were: infection, bone fragility, hypertension, diabetes, weight, fatigue, mood disturbance and death. In addition, collection of disease specific outcomes was included in the core domain set as "mandatory in specific circumstances". The proposed core domain set was endorsed by 100% (23/23) of the patient research partners and 92% (83/90) of the remaining participants, including clinicians, researchers and industry stakeholders. CONCLUSION: A GC Impact core domain set was endorsed at the OMERACT 2020 virtual workshop. The OMERACT GC Impact working group will now progress to identify, develop and validate measurement tools to best address these domains in clinical trials.

Reporting of health equity considerations in cluster and individually randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: The randomized controlled trial (RCT) is considered the gold standard study design to inform decisions about the effectiveness of interventions. However, a common limitation is inadequate reporting of the applicability of the intervention and trial results for people who are "socially disadvantaged" and this can affect policy-makers' decisions. We previously developed a framework for identifying health-equity-relevant trials, along with a reporting guideline for transparent reporting. In this study, we provide a descriptive assessment of health-equity considerations in 200 randomly sampled equity-relevant trials. METHODS: We developed a search strategy to identify health-equity-relevant trials published between 2013 and 2015. We randomly sorted the 4316 records identified by the search and screened studies until 100 individually randomized (RCTs) and 100 cluster randomized controlled trials (CRTs) were identified. We developed and pilot-tested a data extraction form based on our initial work, to inform the development of our reporting guideline for equity-relevant randomized trials. RESULTS: In total, 39 trials (20%) were conducted in a low- and middle-income country and 157 trials (79%) in a high-income country focused on socially disadvantaged populations (78% CRTs, 79% RCTs). Seventy-four trials (37%) reported a subgroup analysis across a population characteristic associated with disadvantage (25% CRT, 49% RCTs), with 19% of included studies reporting subgroup analyses across sex, 9% across race/ethnicity/culture, and 4% across socioeconomic status. No subgroup analyses were reported for place of residence, occupation, religion, education, or social capital. One hundred and forty-one trials (71%) discussed the applicability of their results to one or more socially disadvantaged populations (68% of CRT, 73% of RCT). DISCUSSION: In this set of trials, selected for their relevance to health equity, data that were disaggregated for socially disadvantaged populations were rarely reported. We found that even when the data are available, opportunities to analyze health-equity considerations are frequently missed. The recently published equity extension of the Consolidated Reporting Standards for Randomized Trials (CONSORT-Equity) may help improve delineation of hypotheses related to socially disadvantaged populations, and transparency and completeness of reporting of health-equity considerations in RCTs. This study can serve as a baseline assessment of the reporting of equity considerations.

OMERACT Filter 2.1: Elaboration of the Conceptual Framework for Outcome Measurement in Health Intervention Studies.

OBJECTIVE: The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Filter 2.0 framework was developed in 2014 to aid core outcome set development by describing the full universe of "measurable aspects of health conditions" from which core domains can be selected. This paper provides elaborations and updated concepts (OMERACT Filter 2.1). METHODS: At OMERACT 2018, we discussed challenges in the framework application caused by unclear or ambiguous wording and terms and incompletely developed concepts. RESULTS: The updated OMERACT Filter 2.1 framework makes benefits and harms explicit, clarifies concepts, and improves naming of various terms. CONCLUSION: We expect that the Filter 2.1 framework will improve the process of core set development.

WITHDRAWN: Celecoxib for rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a systemic auto-immune disorder, involving persistent joint inflammation. NSAIDs are used to control the symptoms of RA, but are associated with significant gastro-intestinal toxicity, including a risk of potentially life threatening gastroduodenal perforations, ulcers and bleeds. The NSAIDs known as the selective Cox II inhibitors, of which celecoxib is a member, were developed in order to reduce the GI toxicity, but are more expensive. OBJECTIVES: To establish the efficacy and safety of celecoxib in the management of RA by systematic review of available evidence. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to August 2002: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, National Research Register, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Health Technology Assessment Database. The bibliographies of retrieved papers and content experts were consulted for additional references. SELECTION CRITERIA: All eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included. No unpublished RCTs were included in this edition of the review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were abstracted independently by two reviewers. Data was analysed using a fixed effects model. A validated checklist was used to score the quality of the RCTs. The planned analysis was to pool, where appropriate continuous outcomes using mean differences and dichotomous outcomes using relative risk ratios. This was not however possible due to the lack of data. MAIN RESULTS: Five RCTs were included (4465 participants); three of the studies also enrolled individuals with OA. The comparators were placebo, naproxen, diclofenac and ibuprofen. The evidence reviewed suggests that celecoxib controls the symptoms of RA to a similar degree to that of the active comparators examined (naproxen, diclofenac and ibuprofen). When compared to placebo, the percentage of patients showing improvement according to ACR 20 criteria at week 4 were 42/82 (51%) in the twice daily celecoxib 200mg group and 43/82 (52%) in the twice daily celecoxib 400mg group; these were significantly different from the placebo group in which 25/85 (29%) improved. The six month data reviewed support a reduced rate of UGI complications with celecoxib but there is also evidence to suggest that these benefits may not be evident in the long-term and that celecoxib offers no additional benefit in patients who are also receiving cardio-prophylactic low dose aspirin. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For an individual with RA the potential benefits of celecoxib need to be balanced against the uncertainty that the short-term reduced incidence of upper GI complications are maintained in the long-term and its increased cost in comparison to traditional NSAIDs.

Considerations and guidance in designing equity-relevant clinical trials.

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

GRADE equity guidelines 2: considering health equity in GRADE guideline development: equity extension of the guideline development checklist.

OBJECTIVE: To provide guidance for guideline developers on how to consider health equity at key stages of the guideline development process. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Literature review followed by group discussions and consensus building. RESULTS: The key stages at which guideline developers could consider equity include setting priorities, guideline group membership, identifying the target audience(s), generating the guideline questions, considering the importance of outcomes and interventions, deciding what evidence to include and searching for evidence, summarizing the evidence and considering additional information, wording of recommendations, and evaluation and use. We provide examples of how guidelines have actually considered equity at each of these stages. CONCLUSION: Guideline projects should consider the aforementioned suggestions for recommendations that are equity sensitive.

Health Equity Considerations for Developing and Reporting Patient-reported Outcomes in Clinical Trials: A Report from the OMERACT Equity Special Interest Group.

OBJECTIVE: Despite advances integrating patient-centered outcomes into rheumatologic studies, concerns remain regarding their representativeness across diverse patient groups and how this affects equity. The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Equity Working Group aims to determine whether and how to address equity issues within the core outcome sets of domains and instruments. METHODS: We surveyed current and previous OMERACT meeting attendees and members of the Campbell and Cochrane Equity Group regarding whether to address equity issues within the OMERACT Filter 2.0 Core Outcome Sets and how to assess the appropriateness of domains, instruments, and measurement properties among diverse patients. At OMERACT 2016, results of the survey and a narrative review of differential psychosocial effects of rheumatoid arthritis (i.e., on men) were presented to stimulate discussion and develop a research agenda. RESULTS: We proposed 6 moments for which an equity lens could be added to the development, selection, or testing of patient-reported outcome measures (PROM): (1) recruitment, (2) domain selection, (3) feasibility in diverse settings, (4) instrument validity, (5) thresholds of meaning, and (6) consideration of statistical power of subgroup analyses for outcome reporting. CONCLUSION: There is a need to (1) conduct a systematic review to assess how equity and population characteristics have been considered in PROM development and whether these differences influence the ranking of importance of outcome domains or a patient's response to questionnaire items, and (2) conduct the same survey described above with patients representing groups experiencing health inequities.

Food supplementation for improving the physical and psychosocial health of socio-economically disadvantaged children aged three months to five years.

BACKGROUND: Undernutrition contributes to five million deaths of children under five each year. Furthermore, throughout the life cycle, undernutrition contributes to increased risk of infection, poor cognitive functioning, chronic disease, and mortality. It is thus important for decision-makers to have evidence about the effectiveness of nutrition interventions for young children. OBJECTIVES: Primary objective1. To assess the effectiveness of supplementary feeding interventions, alone or with co-intervention, for improving the physical and psychosocial health of disadvantaged children aged three months to five years.Secondary objectives1. To assess the potential of such programmes to reduce socio-economic inequalities in undernutrition.2. To evaluate implementation and to understand how this may impact on outcomes.3. To determine whether there are any adverse effects of supplementary feeding. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and seven other databases for all available years up to January 2014. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and several sources of grey literature. In addition, we searched the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews, and asked experts in the area about ongoing and unpublished trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs, controlled clinical trials (CCTs), controlled before-and-after studies (CBAs), and interrupted time series (ITS) that provided supplementary food (with or without co-intervention) to children aged three months to five years, from all countries. Adjunctive treatments, such as nutrition education, were allowed. Controls had to be untreated. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two or more review authors independently reviewed searches, selected studies for inclusion or exclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We conducted meta-analyses for continuous data using the mean difference (MD) or the standardised mean difference (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI), correcting for clustering if necessary. We analysed studies from low- and middle-income countries and from high-income countries separately, and RCTs separately from CBAs. We conducted a process evaluation to understand which factors impact on effectiveness. MAIN RESULTS: We included 32 studies (21 RCTs and 11 CBAs); 26 of these (16 RCTs and 10 CBAs) were in meta-analyses. More than 50% of the RCTs were judged to have low risk of bias for random selection and incomplete outcome assessment. We judged most RCTS to be unclear for allocation concealment, blinding of outcome assessment, and selective outcome reporting. Because children and parents knew that they were given food, we judged blinding of participants and personnel to be at high risk for all studies.Growth. Supplementary feeding had positive effects on growth in low- and middle-income countries. Meta-analysis of the RCTs showed that supplemented children gained an average of 0.12 kg more than controls over six months (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 0.18, 9 trials, 1057 participants, moderate quality evidence). In the CBAs, the effect was similar; 0.24 kg over a year (95% CI 0.09 to 0.39, 1784 participants, very low quality evidence). In high-income countries, one RCT found no difference in weight, but in a CBA with 116 Aboriginal children in Australia, the effect on weight was 0.95 kg (95% CI 0.58 to 1.33). For height, meta-analysis of nine RCTs revealed that supplemented children grew an average of 0.27 cm more over six months than those who were not supplemented (95% CI 0.07 to 0.48, 1463 participants, moderate quality evidence). Meta-analysis of seven CBAs showed no evidence of an effect (mean difference (MD) 0.52 cm, 95% CI -0.07 to 1.10, 7 trials, 1782 participants, very low quality evidence). Meta-analyses of the RCTs demonstrated benefits for weight-for-age z-scores (WAZ) (MD 0.15, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.24, 8 trials, 1565 participants, moderate quality evidence), and height-for-age z-scores (HAZ) (MD 0.15, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.24, 9 trials, 4638 participants, moderate quality evidence), but not for weight-for-height z-scores MD 0.10 (95% CI -0.02 to 0.22, 7 trials, 4176 participants, moderate quality evidence). Meta-analyses of the CBAs showed no effects on WAZ, HAZ, or WHZ (very low quality evidence). We found moderate positive effects for haemoglobin (SMD 0.49, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.91, 5 trials, 300 participants) in a meta-analysis of the RCTs.Psychosocial outcomes. Eight RCTs in low- and middle-income countries assessed psychosocial outcomes. Our meta-analysis of two studies showed moderate positive effects of feeding on psychomotor development (SMD 0.41, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.72, 178 participants). The evidence of effects on cognitive development was sparse and mixed.We found evidence of substantial leakage. When feeding was given at home, children benefited from only 36% of the energy in the supplement. However, when the supplementary food was given in day cares or feeding centres, there was less leakage; children took in 85% of the energy provided in the supplement. Supplementary food was generally more effective for younger children (less than two years of age) and for those who were poorer/ less well-nourished. Results for sex were equivocal. Our results also suggested that feeding programmes which were given in day-care/feeding centres and those which provided a moderate-to-high proportion of the recommended daily intake (% RDI) for energy were more effective. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Feeding programmes for young children in low- and middle-income countries can work, but good implementation is key.

Influencing health equity: role of the effective consumer scale in measuring skills and abilities in a middle income country.

The 2008 World Health Report emphasizes the need for patient-centered primary care service delivery models in which patients are equal partners in the planning and management of their health. It is argued that this involvement will lead to improved management of disease, improved health outcomes and patient satisfaction, better informed decision-making, increased compliance with healthcare decisions, and better resource utilization. This article investigates the domains captured by the Effective Consumer Scale (EC-17) in relation to vulnerable population groups that experience health inequity. Particular focus is paid to the domain of health literacy as an area fundamental to patients' involvement in managing their condition and negotiating the healthcare system. In examining the possible influence of Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials (OMERACT) on health equity, we used the recent translation and validation of the EC-17 scale into Spanish and tested Argentina as an example. Future plans to use the EC-17 with vulnerable groups include formal collaboration and needs assessment with the community to tailor an intervention to meet its needs in a culturally relevant manner. Some systematic reviews have questioned whether interventions to improve effective consumer skills are appropriate in vulnerable populations. We propose that these populations may have the most to gain from such interventions since they might be expected to have relatively lower skills and health literacy than other groups.

Health research funding agencies' support and promotion of knowledge translation: an international study.

CONTEXT: The process of knowledge translation (KT) in health research depends on the activities of a wide range of actors, including health professionals, researchers, the public, policymakers, and research funders. Little is known, however, about health research funding agencies' support and promotion of KT. Our team asked thirty-three agencies from Australia, Canada, France, the Netherlands, Scandinavia, the United Kingdom, and the United States about their role in promoting the results of the research they fund. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with a sample of key informants from applied health funding agencies identified by the investigators. The interviews were supplemented with information from the agencies' websites. The final coding was derived from an iterative thematic analysis. FINDINGS: There was a lack of clarity between agencies as to what is meant by KT and how it is operationalized. Agencies also varied in their degree of engagement in this process. The agencies' abilities to create a pull for research findings; to engage in linkage and exchange between agencies, researchers, and decision makers; and to push results to various audiences differed as well. Finally, the evaluation of the effectiveness of KT strategies remains a methodological challenge. CONCLUSIONS: Funding agencies need to think about both their conceptual framework and their operational definition of KT, so that it is clear what is and what is not considered to be KT, and adjust their funding opportunities and activities accordingly. While we have cataloged the range of knowledge translation activities conducted across these agencies, little is known about their effectiveness and so a greater emphasis on evaluation is needed. It would appear that "best practice" for funding agencies is an elusive concept depending on the particular agency's size, context, mandate, financial considerations, and governance structure.

Reduction of inequalities in health: assessing evidence-based tools.

BACKGROUND: The reduction of health inequalities is a focus of many national and international health organisations. The need for pragmatic evidence-based approaches has led to the development of a number of evidence-based equity initiatives. This paper describes a new program that focuses upon evidence- based tools, which are useful for policy initiatives that reduce inequities. METHODS: This paper is based on a presentation that was given at the "Regional Consultation on Policy Tools: Equity in Population Health Reports," held in Toronto, Canada in June 2002. RESULTS: Five assessment tools were presented. 1. A database of systematic reviews on the effects of educational, legal, social, and health interventions to reduce unfair inequalities is being established through the Cochrane and Campbell Collaborations. 2 Decision aids and shared decision making can be facilitated in disadvantaged groups by 'health coaches' to help people become better decision makers, negotiators, and navigators of the health system; a pilot study in Chile has provided proof of this concept. 3. The CIET Cycle: Combining adapted cluster survey techniques with qualitative methods, CIET's population based applications support evidence-based decision making at local and national levels. The CIET map generates maps directly from survey or routine institutional data, to be used as evidence-based decisions aids. Complex data can be displayed attractively, providing an important tool for studying and comparing health indicators among and between different populations. 4. The Ottawa Equity Gauge is applying the Global Equity Gauge Alliance framework to an industrialised country setting. 5 The Needs-Based Health Assessment Toolkit, established to assemble information on which clinical and health policy decisions can be based, is being expanded to ensure a focus on distribution and average health indicators. CONCLUSION: Evidence-based planning tools have much to offer the goal of equitable health development.

Household cost-benefit equations and sustainable universal childhood immunisation: a randomised cluster controlled trial in south Pakistan [ISRCTN12421731].

BACKGROUND: Household decision-makers decide about service use based largely on the costs and perceived benefits of health interventions. Very often this leads to different decisions than those imagined by health planners, resulting in under-utilisation of public services like immunisation. In the case of Lasbela district in the south of Pakistan, only one in every ten children is immunised despite free immunisation offers by government health services. METHODS/DESIGN: In 32 communities representative of Lasbela district, 3344 households participated in a baseline survey on early child health. In the 18 randomly selected intervention communities, we will stimulate discussions on the household cost-benefit equation, as measured in the baseline. The reference (control) communities will also participate in the three annual follow-up surveys, feedback of the general survey results and the usual health promotion activities relating to immunisation, but without focussed discussion on the household cost-benefit equations. DISCUSSION: This project proposes knowledge translation as a two-way communication that can be augmented by local and international evidence. We will document cultural and contextual barriers to immunisation in the context of household cost-benefit equations. The project makes this information accessible to health managers, and reciprocally, makes information on immunisation effects and side effects available to communities. We will measure the impact of this two-way knowledge translation on immunisation uptake.