Assessing the reporting quality of physical activity programs in randomized controlled trials for the management of juvenile idiopathic arthritis using three standardized assessment tools.

BACKGROUND: The reporting quality of physical activity (PA) programs in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for the management of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) remains unknown. This study aimed to assess and compare the reporting quality of PA programs in RCTs for the management of JIA using three difference standardized assessment tools, and to describe the elements that were similar and different between these tools. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted for moderate-to high-quality RCTs of PA programs in JIA, published up until January 2019. Two reviewers independently included 10 RCTs and scored the reporting quality of PA programs using the following tools: Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT) checklist, Consensus on Therapeutic Exercise Training (CONTENT) scale, and Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist. RESULTS: Results showed that reporting of PA programs in 10 moderate- to high-quality RCTs for JIA management remains incomplete. The average reporting quality (± standard deviation) for all RCTs combined was moderate for the three standardized assessment tools with 70.8 (±14.3)% for the TIDieR checklist, 53.2 (±20.2)% for the CERT checklist, and 70.0 (±18.9)% for the CONTENT scale. Despite some overlap, the three standardized assessment tools (TIDieR, CERT, CONTENT) included different elements resulting in different scores. All tools assess elements linked to PA programs (provider, location, timing, personalization and adherence), but the CERT checklist includes other essential elements (e.g., additional resources, motivational strategies, adverse events). CONCLUSIONS: The lack of complete reporting of PA programs in RCTs for the management of JIA and the variation in scores and assessed elements among standardized assessment tools show the need to improve reporting. Using the most comprehensive standardized tool (i.e., the CERT) and providing accessible supplemental information on PA programs may improve the reporting quality of PA programs in RCTs and help reproduce PA programs in research and clinical practice.

Programs to increase high school completion: a community guide systematic health equity review.

CONTEXT: High school completion (HSC) is an established predictor of long-term morbidity and mortality. U.S. rates of HSC are substantially lower among students from low-income families and most racial/ethnic minority populations than students from high-income families and the non-Hispanic white population. This systematic review assesses the effectiveness of programs to increase HSC and the potential of these programs to improve lifelong health among at-risk students. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A search located a meta-analysis (search period 1985-2010/2011) on the effects of programs to increase HSC or General Educational Development (GED) diploma receipt; the meta-analysis was concordant with Community Guide definitions and methodologic standards. Programs were assessed separately for the general student population (152 studies) and students who were parents or pregnant (15 studies). A search for studies published between 2010 and August 2012 located ten more recent studies, which were assessed for consistency with the meta-analysis. Analyses were conducted in 2013. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The review focused on the meta-analysis. Program effectiveness was measured as the increased rate of HSC (or GED receipt) by the intervention group compared with controls. All assessed program types were effective in increasing HSC in the general student population: vocational training, alternative schooling, social-emotional skills training, college-oriented programming, mentoring and counseling, supplemental academic services, school and class restructuring, multiservice packages, attendance monitoring and contingencies, community service, and case management. For students who had children or were pregnant, attendance monitoring and multiservice packages were effective. Ten studies published after the search period for the meta-analysis were consistent with its findings. CONCLUSIONS: There is strong evidence that a variety of HSC programs can improve high school or GED completion rates. Because many programs are targeted to high-risk students and communities, they are likely to advance health equity.

An equity lens can ensure an equity-oriented approach to agenda setting and priority setting of Cochrane Reviews.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to develop and pilot an equity lens that could help researchers in developing a more equity-oriented approach toward priority setting and agenda setting in systematic reviews. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We developed an equity lens to guide the development and evaluation of a prioritization process and evaluate its outcomes based on the information derived from a discussion workshop and a comparison with the existing literature on the topic. We piloted the process section of the equity lens across the 13 structured priority-setting approaches in the Cochrane Collaboration. RESULTS: We devised an equity lens with two checklists: one to guide the process of priority setting (nine questions) and the other to evaluate the outcomes of priority setting (eight questions). Of the nine questions, seven questions were partially addressed by at least one of the prioritization projects. Two questions were not considered in any of them. The prioritization projects did not report sufficient outcome data, thus we could not explore the eight question on evaluating outcomes. CONCLUSION: Currently, there are few strategies in the Cochrane Collaboration that explicitly address the research priorities of individuals from different sociodemographic groups. The equity lens for priority setting and agenda setting can help project teams to develop a more equity-oriented approach to set a research agenda and/or prioritize research topics. However, further studies are needed to evaluate its impact on the prioritization process.

Prevention and self-management interventions are top priorities for osteoarthritis systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVE: To identify high-priority research questions for osteoarthritis systematic reviews with consideration of health equity and the social determinants of health (SDH). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We consulted with experts and conducted a literature search to identify a priority-setting method that could be adapted to address the health equity and SDH. We selected the Global Evidence Mapping priority-setting method, and through consultations and consensus, we adapted the method to meet our objectives. This involves developing an evidence map of the existing systematic reviews on osteoarthritis; conducting one face-to-face workshop with patients and another one with clinicians, researchers, and patients; and conducting an online survey of patients to rank the top 10 research questions. We piloted the adapted method with the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group to set research priorities for osteoarthritis. RESULTS: Our focus was on systematic reviews: we identified 34 high-priority research questions for osteoarthritis systematic reviews. Prevention and self-management interventions, mainly diet and exercise, are top priorities for osteoarthritis systematic reviews. Evaluation against our predefined objectives showed that this method did prioritize SDH (50% of the research questions considered SDH). There were marked gaps: no high-priority topics were identified for access to care until patients had advanced disease-lifestyle changes once the disease was diagnosed. This method was felt feasible if conducted annually. CONCLUSION: We confirmed the utility of an adapted priority-setting method that is feasible and considers SDH. Further testing of this method is needed to assess whether considerations of health equity are prioritized and involve disadvantaged groups of the population.

Does consideration and assessment of effects on health equity affect the conclusions of systematic reviews? A methodology study.

INTRODUCTION: Tackling health inequities both within and between countries remains high on the agenda of international organizations including the World Health Organization and local, regional and national governments. Systematic reviews can be a useful tool to assess effects on equity in health status because they include studies conducted in a variety of settings and populations. This study aims to describe the extent to which the impacts of health interventions on equity in health status are considered in systematic reviews, describe methods used, and assess the implications of their equity related findings for policy, practice and research. METHODS: We conducted a methodology study of equity assessment in systematic reviews. Two independent reviewers extracted information on the reporting and analysis of impacts of health interventions on equity in health status in a group of 300 systematic reviews collected from all systematic reviews indexed in one month of MEDLINE, using a pre-tested data collection form. Any differences in data extraction were resolved by discussion. RESULTS: Of the 300 systematic reviews, 224 assessed the effectiveness of interventions on health outcomes. Of these 224 reviews, 29 systematic reviews assessed effects on equity in health status using subgroup analysis or targeted analyses of vulnerable populations. Of these, seven conducted subgroup analyses related to health equity which were reported in insufficient detail to judge their credibility. Of these 29 reviews, 18 described implications for policy and practice based on assessment of effects on health equity. CONCLUSION: The quality and completeness of reporting should be enhanced as a priority, because without this policymakers and practitioners will continue lack the evidence base they need to inform decision-making about health inequity. Furthermore, there is a need to develop methods to systematically consider impacts on equity in health status that is currently lacking in systematic reviews.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't: subgroup analysis and equity.

The final report from the WHO Commission on the social determinants of health recently noted: 'For policy, however important an ethical imperative, values alone are insufficient. There needs to be evidence on what can be done and what is likely to work in practice to improve health and reduce health inequities.' This is challenging, because understanding how to reduce health inequities between the poorest and better-off members of society may require a greater use of subgroup analysis to explore the differential effects of public health interventions. However, while this may produce evidence that is more policy relevant, the requisite subgroup analyses are often seen as tantamount to statistical malpractice. This paper considers some of the methodological problems with subgroup analysis, and its applicability to considerations of equity, using both clinical and public health examples. Finally, it suggests how policy needs for information on subgroups can be met while maintaining rigour.

Health literacy: what is it and why is it important to measure?

This report summarizes the proceedings of the first Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials (OMERACT) Health Literacy Special Interest Group workshop at the OMERACT 10 conference. Health literacy refers to an individual's capacity to seek, understand, and use health information. Discussion centered on the relevance of health literacy to the rheumatology field; whether measures of health literacy were important in the context of clinical trials and routine care; and, if so, whether disease-specific measures were required. A nominal group process involving 27 workshop participants, comprising a patient group (n = 12) and a healthcare professional and researcher group (n = 15), confirmed that health literacy encompasses a broad range of concepts and skills that existing scales do not measure. It identified the importance and relevance of patient abilities and characteristics, but also health professional factors and broader contextual factors. Sixteen themes were identified: access to information; cognitive capacity; disease; expression/communication; finances; health professionals; health system; information; literacy/numeracy; management skills; medication; patient approach; dealing with problems; psychological characteristics; social supports; and time. Each of these was divided further into subthemes of one or more of the following: knowledge, attitude, attribute, relationship, skill, action, or context. There were virtually no musculoskeletal-specific statements, suggesting that a generic health literacy tool in rheumatology is justified. The detailed concepts across themes provided new and systematic insight into what needs to be done to improve health literacy and consequently reduce health inequalities. These data will be used to derive a more comprehensive measure of health literacy.

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.

Reaching those most in need: a scoping review of interventions to improve health care quality for disadvantaged populations with osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review to identify and describe the scope and nature of the research evidence on the effectiveness of interventions to improve health care quality or reduce disparities in the care of disadvantaged populations with osteoarthritis (OA) as an example of a common chronic disease. METHODS: We searched electronic databases from 1950 through February 2010 and grey literature for relevant articles using any study design. Studies with interventions designed explicitly to improve health care quality or reduce disparities in the care of disadvantaged adult populations with OA and including an evaluation were eligible. We used the PROGRESS-Plus framework to identify disadvantaged population subgroups. RESULTS: Of 4,701 citations identified, 10 met the inclusion criteria. Eight were community based and 6 targeted race/ethnicity/culture. All 10 studies evaluated interventions aimed at people with OA; 2 studies also targeted the health care system. No studies targeted health care providers. Nine of 10 studies evaluated arthritis self-management interventions; all showed some benefit. Only 1 study compared the difference in effect between the PROGRESS-Plus disadvantaged population and the relevant comparator group. CONCLUSION: There are few studies evaluating the effectiveness of interventions to improve health care quality in disadvantaged populations with OA. Further research is needed to evaluate interventions aimed at health care providers and the health care system, as well as other patient-level interventions. Gap intervention research is also needed to evaluate whether interventions are effective in reducing documented health care inequities.

Using logic models to capture complexity in systematic reviews.

Logic models have long been used to understand complex programs to improve social and health outcomes. They illustrate how a program is designed to achieve its intended outcomes. They also can be used to describe connections between determinants of outcomes, for example, low high-school graduation rates or spiraling obesity rates, thus aiding the development of interventions that target causal factors. However, these models have not often been used in systematic reviews. This paper argues that logic models can be valuable in the systematic review process. First, they can aid in the conceptualization of the review focus and illustrate hypothesized causal links, identify effect mediators or moderators, specify intermediate outcomes and potential harms, and justify a priori subgroup analyses when differential effects are anticipated. Second, logic models can be used to direct the review process more specifically. They can help justify narrowing the scope of a review, identify the most relevant inclusion criteria, guide the literature search, and clarify interpretation of results when drawing policy-relevant conclusions about review findings. We present examples that explain how logic models have been used and how they can be applied at different stages in a systematic review. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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

BACKGROUND: Enhancing health equity has now achieved international political importance with endorsement from the World Health Assembly in 2009.  The failure of systematic reviews to consider effects on health equity is cited by decision-makers as a limitation to their ability to inform policy and program decisions.  OBJECTIVES: To systematically review methods to assess effects on health equity in systematic reviews of effectiveness. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the following databases up to July 2 2010: MEDLINE, PsychINFO, the Cochrane Methodology Register, CINAHL, Education Resources Information Center, Education Abstracts, Criminal Justice Abstracts, Index to Legal Periodicals, PAIS International, Social Services Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, Digital Dissertations and the Health Technology Assessment Database. We searched SCOPUS to identify articles that cited any of the included studies on October 7 2010. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included empirical studies of cohorts of systematic reviews that assessed methods for measuring effects on health inequalities. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted using a pre-tested form by two independent reviewers. Risk of bias was appraised for included studies according to the potential for bias in selection and detection of systematic reviews.  MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-four methodological studies were included.  The methods used by these included studies were: 1) Targeted approaches (n=22); 2) gap approaches (n=12) and gradient approach (n=1).  Gender or sex was assessed in eight out of 34 studies, socioeconomic status in ten studies, race/ethnicity in seven studies, age in seven studies, low and middle income countries in 14 studies, and two studies assessed multiple factors across health inequity may exist.Only three studies provided a definition of health equity. Four methodological approaches to assessing effects on health equity were identified: 1) descriptive assessment of reporting and analysis in systematic reviews (all 34 studies used a type of descriptive method); 2) descriptive assessment of reporting and analysis in original trials (12/34 studies); 3) analytic approaches (10/34 studies); and 4) applicability assessment (11/34 studies). Both analytic and applicability approaches were not reported transparently nor in sufficient detail to judge their credibility. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for improvement in conceptual clarity about the definition of health equity, describing sufficient detail about analytic approaches (including subgroup analyses) and transparent reporting of judgments required for applicability assessments in order to assess and report effects on health equity in systematic reviews.

Progress on incorporating the patient perspective in outcome assessment in rheumatology and the emergence of life impact measures at OMERACT 9.

The Patient Perspective Workshop included over 100 researchers and 18 patient participants from 8 countries. Following preconference reading and short plenary presentations, breakout groups considered work undertaken on measurement of sleep, assessing interventions to develop the effective consumer, and assessing psychological and educational interventions. The workshop explored the best way to identify other outcome domains (and instruments) that should be measured in observational or interventional studies with broader intentions than simply altering outcomes captured in the traditional "core set" plus fatigue. Four sleep questionnaires showed promise and will be the subject of further study. The Effective Consumer scale (EC-17) was reviewed and the concept Effective Consumer was well received. Participants thought it worthwhile to measure the skills and attributes of an effective consumer and develop an intervention that would include education in all of the scale's categories. Assessment of educational and psychological interventions requires a wider set of instruments than is currently used; these should relate to the purpose of the intervention. This principle was extended to include wider measures of the impact of disease on life, as indicated in the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Life impact measure sets covering domains appropriate to different rheumatic conditions and focused on different interventions might be defined by future OMERACT consensus. Measurement instruments within these domains that are valid for use in rheumatic conditions can then be identified and, in the case of psychological and educational interventions, chosen to fit with the purpose of the intervention.

Equity-oriented toolkit for health technology assessment and knowledge translation: application to scaling up of training and education for health workers.

Human resources for health are in crisis worldwide, especially in economically disadvantaged areas and areas with high rates of HIV/AIDS in both health workers and patients. International organizations such as the Global Health Workforce Alliance have been established to address this crisis. A technical working group within the Global Health Workforce Alliance developed recommendations for scaling up education and training of health workers. The paper will illustrate how decision-makers can use evidence and tools from an equity-oriented toolkit to scale up training and education of health workers, following five recommendations of the technical working group. The Equity-Oriented Toolkit, developed by the World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Knowledge Translation and Health Technology Assessment in Health Equity, has four major steps: (1) burden of illness; (2) community effectiveness; (3) economic evaluation; and (4) knowledge translation/implementation. Relevant tools from each of these steps will be matched with the appropriate recommendation from the technical working group.

Is health equity considered in systematic reviews of the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group?

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group (CMSG) systematic reviews and corresponding primary studies of rheumatoid arthritis interventions report and analyze the data needed to assess the effectiveness of interventions in reducing socioeconomic differences in health and/or improving the health of the poor. METHODS: We selected all CMSG reviews on rheumatoid arthritis published since issue 1, 2003. Fourteen reviews were identified; 147 of the 156 primary studies included in these reviews were obtained and assessed. We extracted data on whether the dimensions place of residence, race/ethnicity/culture, occupation, gender, religion, education, socioeconomic status, and social capital and networks (PROGRESS) were reported or analyzed, and whether any interventions were aimed at disadvantaged or low- and middle-income country populations. RESULTS: Among the dimensions of PROGRESS reported at baseline in 147 primary studies, gender (89%) was the most commonly reported, followed by education (25%) and race/ethnicity (18%). Less than 50% of the systematic reviews reported dimensions of PROGRESS even when they had been reported in the primary study. Of 147 primary studies, 6 (5%) were aimed specifically at disadvantaged populations; another 6 reported on effectiveness by at least 1 dimension of PROGRESS. CONCLUSION: Primary studies of interventions for rheumatoid arthritis generally reported few variables necessary to answer questions about health inequalities. Most CMSG systematic reviews failed to assess those variables even when described in the primary studies. The Cochrane Health Equity Field welcomes the opportunity to provide guidance to systematic review authors on incorporating equity considerations into their reviews.