Acceptability and feasibility of screening with a pediatric care provider-led social determinants of health identification tool.

BACKGROUND: Complex social determinants of health may not be easily recognized by health care providers and pose a unique challenge in the vulnerable pediatric population where patients may not be able to advocate for themselves. The goal of this study was to examine the acceptability and feasibility of health care providers using an integrated brief pediatric screening tool in primary care and hospital settings. METHODS: The framework of the Child and Adolescent Needs and Strengths (CANS) and Pediatric Intermed tools was used to inform the selection of items for the 9-item Child and Adolescent Needs and Strengths-Pediatric Complexity Indicator (CANS-PCI). The tool consisted of three domains: biological, psychological, and social. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with health care providers in pediatric medical facilities in Ottawa, Canada. A low inference and iterative thematic synthesis approach was used to analyze the qualitative interview data specific to acceptability and feasibility. RESULTS: Thirteen health care providers participated in interviews. Six overarching themes were identified: acceptability, logistics, feasibility, pros/cons, risk, and privacy. Overall, participants agreed that a routine, trained provider-led pediatric tool for the screening of social determinants of health is important (n = 10, 76.9%), acceptable (n = 11; 84.6%), and feasible (n = 7, 53.8%). INTERPRETATION: Though the importance of social determinants of health are widely recognized, there are limited systematic methods of assessing, describing, and communicating amongst health care providers about the biomedical and psychosocial complexities of pediatric patients. Based on this study's findings, implementation of a brief provider-led screening tool into pediatric care practices may contribute to this gap.

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.

Motivations for investigating health inequities in observational epidemiology: a content analysis of 320 studies.

OBJECTIVES: To enhance equity in clinical and epidemiological research, it is crucial to understand researcher motivations for conducting equity-relevant studies. Therefore, we evaluated author motivations in a randomly selected sample of equity-relevant observational studies published during the COVID-19 pandemic. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched MEDLINE for studies from 2020 to 2022, resulting in 16,828 references. We randomly selected 320 studies purposefully sampled across income setting (high vs low-middle-income), COVID-19 topic (vs non-COVID-19), and focus on populations experiencing inequities. Of those, 206 explicitly mentioned motivations which we analyzed thematically. We used discourse analysis to investigate the reasons behind emerging motivations. RESULTS: We identified the following motivations: (1) examining health disparities, (2) tackling social determinants to improve access, and (3) addressing knowledge gaps in health equity. Discourse analysis showed motivations stem from commitments to social justice and recognizing the importance of highlighting it in research. Other discourses included aspiring to improve health-care efficiency, wanting to understand cause-effect relationships, and seeking to contribute to an equitable evidence base. CONCLUSION: Understanding researchers' motivations for assessing health equity can aid in developing guidance that tailors to their needs. We will consider these motivations in developing and sharing equity guidance to better meet researchers' needs.

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.

Places of death and places of care for Indigenous Peoples in Ontario: a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Most people, including Indigenous people in Ontario, wish to die in their communities. How often Indigenous people in Ontario die in their preferred settings is unknown. This study aims to describe the places of care and death for Indigenous people in Ontario who received provincially funded home care services. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using linked health administrative databases housed at ICES. We used a population-based cohort of Indigenous and non-Indigenous people in Ontario who died between April 1, 2010 and March 31, 2015 to describe characteristics of people, places of death, and places of care. RESULTS: Indigenous decedents were on average 8.8 years younger, had more chronic diseases, and lived in lower income neighbourhoods compared with their non-Indigenous counterparts. Indigenous decedents spent nearly 8 more days in acute care in the last year of life and more died in acute care (56.1% versus 46.1%). When controlling for covariates, Indigenous decedents received 1.9 fewer home care nursing hours and 5 fewer personal support worker hours and showed decreased odds (OR 0.72) of receiving a palliative physician visit in the last 90 days of life. Among Indigenous decedents, a palliative physician visit lowered odds of dying in acute care by 50% and total days in acute care by 18%. CONCLUSION: Our study identified a gap in end-of-life care for Indigenous Peoples in Ontario receiving provincially funded home care. Without continued efforts to address challenges that perpetuate health inequalities, we expect many Indigenous people will continue to die in acute care away from their people, families, and culturally relevant supports.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIFS: La plupart des gens, y compris les personnes autochtones en Ontario, souhaitent mourir dans leur milieu. On ignore à quelle fréquence les personnes autochtones de l'Ontario meurent dans le milieu de leur choix. Notre étude vise à décrire les lieux de soins et de décès des personnes autochtones en Ontario ayant reçu des services de soins à domicile financés par la province. MéTHODE: Nous avons mené une étude de cohorte rétrospective à l'aide de bases de données administratives sur la santé reliées entre elles hébergées à l'ICES. Nous avons utilisé une cohorte populationnelle des personnes autochtones et non autochtones en Ontario décédées entre le 1er avril 2010 et le 31 mars 2015 pour décrire les caractéristiques de ces personnes, leurs lieux de décès et leurs lieux de soins. RéSULTATS: Les défunts autochtones étaient en moyenne 8,8 ans plus jeunes, avaient davantage de maladies chroniques et vivaient dans des quartiers à plus faible revenu que les défunts non autochtones. Les défunts autochtones avaient passé près de 8 jours de plus dans des milieux de soins de courte durée au cours de leur dernière année de vie et ont été plus nombreux à mourir dans des milieux de soins de courte durée (56,1 % c. 46,1 %). Après avoir apporté des ajustements pour tenir compte des effets de covariables, nous avons constaté que les défunts autochtones ont reçu 1,9 fois moins d'heures de soins infirmiers à domicile et 5 fois moins d'heures de préposés aux services de soutien à la personne et qu'ils ont présenté une probabilité plus faible (RC 0,72) de recevoir la visite d'un médecin en soins palliatifs au cours de leurs 90 derniers jours de vie. Chez les défunts autochtones, la visite d'un médecin en soins palliatifs réduisait de 50 % la probabilité de mourir dans un milieu de soins de courte durée et de 18 % le nombre total de jours passés dans un milieu de soins de courte durée. CONCLUSION: Notre étude a décelé une lacune dans les soins de fin de vie aux personnes autochtones de l'Ontario qui reçoivent des soins à domicile financés par la province. Si l'on ne fait pas continuellement des efforts pour aborder les difficultés qui perpétuent les inégalités en santé, on peut s'attendre à ce que de nombreuses personnes autochtones continuent de mourir dans des milieux de soins de courte durée, loin de leurs peuples, de leurs familles et sans recevoir de soins culturellement appropriés.

Improving Social Justice in COVID-19 Health Research: Interim Guidelines for Reporting Health Equity in Observational Studies.

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the global imperative to address health inequities. Observational studies are a valuable source of evidence for real-world effects and impacts of implementing COVID-19 policies on the redistribution of inequities. We assembled a diverse global multi-disciplinary team to develop interim guidance for improving transparency in reporting health equity in COVID-19 observational studies. We identified 14 areas in the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) checklist that need additional detail to encourage transparent reporting of health equity. We searched for examples of COVID-19 observational studies that analysed and reported health equity analysis across one or more social determinants of health. We engaged with Indigenous stakeholders and others groups experiencing health inequities to co-produce this guidance and to bring an intersectional lens. Taking health equity and social determinants of health into account contributes to the clinical and epidemiological understanding of the disease, identifying specific needs and supporting decision-making processes. Stakeholders are encouraged to consider using this guidance on observational research to help provide evidence to close the inequitable gaps in health outcomes.

"Nothing About Us, without Us." How Community-Based Participatory Research Methods Were Adapted in an Indigenous End-of-Life Study Using Previously Collected Data.

La recherche en santé autochtone au Canada a été négligée dans le passé et qualifiée de problématique, notamment en raison du manque de collaboration avec les peuples autochtones. L'Énoncé de politique des trois Conseils sur l'éthique de la recherche avec des êtres humains décrit au chapitre 9 la conduite éthique de la recherche axée sur les Premières nations, les Inuits et les Métis. Les principes PCAP® des Premières nations (propriété, contrôle, accès et possession) soulignent l'importance majeure de l'engagement et de la gouvernance autochtones. En vue d'assurer que les buts et les activités de la recherche développée soient réalisés en partenariat complet et significatif avec les peuples et les communautés autochtones, il est possible de faire appel à des méthodes de recherche participative communautaire (RPC) intégrant leur plein engagement. Les recherches utilisant des ensembles de données secondaires, telles que les données administratives sur la santé recueillies en routine, ne devraient plus être exclues de cette approche. Notre objectif était de décrire comment notre équipe de chercheurs universitaires, alliée à un organisme national de santé autochtone, a adapté les méthodes de RPC dans le cadre d'un projet de recherche utilisant des données recueillies antérieurement pour examiner les lacunes dans la prestation de soins de fin de vie aux peuples autochtones en Ontario. Nous décrivons le processus d'élaboration de ce partenariat de recherche et expliquons comment l'intégration des principes de base et des processus de formation du savoir autochtones ont guidé cette collaboration. Notre partenariat de recherche, qui implique l'adaptation de méthodes de RPC, illustre un processus d'engagement qui pourrait guider d'autres chercheurs désirant mener des recherches en santé autochtone à l'aide de données déjà recueillies. Nous faisons aussi état d'une entente de recherche transparente, négociée équitablement entre un organisme national de santé autochtone et des chercheurs, qui pourrait servir de cadre pour des collaborations de recherche similaires. Il est essentiel de s'assurer que les perspectives autochtones soient au cœur des processus de recherche et qu'elles soient reflétées dans ceux-ci lorsque des données administratives sur la santé sont utilisées.Indigenous health research in Canada has a chequered past and has been identified as problematic and lacking in appropriate collaboration with Indigenous people. The Tri-Council Policy Statement on Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans, Chapter 9 describes ethical conduct of research regarding First Nations, Inuit, and Métis Peoples. First Nations Ownership, Control, Access, and Possession (OCAP®) Principles highlight the necessity of Indigenous engagement and governance. To ensure that the aims and activities of the research being developed are in full and meaningful partnership with Indigenous peoples and communities, community-based participatory research (CBPR) methods provide a process in which full engagement is possible. Research utilizing secondary data sets, such as routinely collected health administrative data, should no longer be excluded from this approach. Our aim was to describe how our research team of academic researchers and a national Indigenous health organization adapted CBPR methods in a research project using previously collected data to examine end-of-life health care service delivery gaps for Indigenous people in Ontario. We describe the process of how we developed our research partnership and how grounding principles and Indigenous ways of knowing guided our work together. Through the adaptation of CBPR methods, our research partnership illustrates a process of engagement that can guide others hoping to conduct Indigenous health research using previously collected data. We also present a transparent research agreement negotiated equally by a national Indigenous health organization and research scientists, which can also be used as a framework for others wishing to establish similar research partnerships. Ensuring that Indigenous perspectives are central to and reflected in the research process is essential when using health administrative data.