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.

Social Innovation For Health Research: Development of the SIFHR Checklist.

BACKGROUND: Social innovations in health are inclusive solutions to address the healthcare delivery gap that meet the needs of end users through a multi-stakeholder, community-engaged process. While social innovations for health have shown promise in closing the healthcare delivery gap, more research is needed to evaluate, scale up, and sustain social innovation. Research checklists can standardize and improve reporting of research findings, promote transparency, and increase replicability of study results and findings. METHODS AND FINDINGS: The research checklist was developed through a 3-step community-engaged process, including a global open call for ideas, a scoping review, and a 3-round modified Delphi process. The call for entries solicited checklists and related items and was open between November 27, 2019 and February 1, 2020. In addition to the open call submissions and scoping review findings, a 17-item Social Innovation For Health Research (SIFHR) Checklist was developed based on the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) Checklist. The checklist was then refined during 3 rounds of Delphi surveys conducted between May and June 2020. The resulting checklist will facilitate more complete and transparent reporting, increase end-user engagement, and help assess social innovation projects. A limitation of the open call was requiring internet access, which likely discouraged participation of some subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: The SIFHR Checklist will strengthen the reporting of social innovation for health research studies. More research is needed on social innovation for health.

Exploring social innovation in health in Central America and the Caribbean.

Universal health coverage is a public health priority in the Americas. Social innovation in health offers novel solutions to unmet needs, by enabling health care delivery to be more inclusive, affordable, and effective. In 2017, an international collaborative consortium launched an open call for solutions that sought to identify social innovations in health in Central America and the Caribbean. The focus was set on how these solutions can strengthen health care delivery, with emphasis on reducing the impact of neglected transmissible diseases. A crowdsourcing strategy was implemented to identify social innovations in health. These were evaluated by an external panel of experts and practitioners and civil society representing the health and social innovation sectors, based on the appropriateness, innovativeness, and affordability of the solution. The three top-scoring solutions were analyzed through case studies including site visits by a team of investigators. Two key findings emerged from the response to the call: 1) innovative solutions were based on the knowledge and experience of individuals and communities facing adverse situations; 2) this knowledge was shared through health promotion and education, leading to empowerment of the communities. The principal challenges addressed by the solutions were the limited access to quality health care services and failed traditional strategies for vector control. The solutions identified demonstrated how social innovation can strengthen health systems by delivering novel solutions to health needs and articulating communities to enable them to work hand-in-hand with the health system toward universal health.

La cobertura universal de salud es una prioridad de salud pública en la Región de las Américas. La innovación social en materia de salud ofrece soluciones novedosas a las necesidades insatisfechas, al permitir que la prestación de servicios de salud sea más inclusiva, asequible y eficaz. En 2017, un consorcio de colaboración internacional lanzó una convocatoria abierta de soluciones con el fin de identificar innovaciones sociales en materia de salud en América Central y el Caribe. Esta se centró en la forma en que esas soluciones pueden fortalecer la prestación de atención sanitaria, con énfasis en la reducción de los efectos de las enfermedades transmisibles desatendidas. Para identificar las innovaciones sociales en materia de salud se aplicó una estrategia de colaboración masiva (crowdsourcing). Las propuestas fueron evaluadas por un grupo externo conformado por expertos, profesionales y la sociedad civil que representaban a los sectores de la salud y la innovación social, sobre la base de la idoneidad, la capacidad de innovación y la asequibilidad de la solución. Se analizaron las tres soluciones mejor calificadas mediante estudios de casos que incluyeron visitas al lugar por parte de un equipo de investigadores. De la respuesta a la convocatoria surgieron dos conclusiones clave: 1) las soluciones innovadoras se basaron en el conocimiento y la experiencia de las personas y las comunidades que se enfrentaban a situaciones adversas, y 2) este conocimiento se compartió a través de actividades de promoción de la salud y educación, lo que condujo al empoderamiento de las comunidades. Los principales problemas que abordaron las soluciones fueron el acceso limitado a servicios de atención sanitaria de calidad y el fracaso de las estrategias tradicionales de control de vectores. Las soluciones identificadas demostraron cómo la innovación social puede fortalecer los sistemas de salud proporcionando soluciones novedosas a las necesidades de salud y apoyando a las comunidades para que puedan colaborar estrechamente con el sistema de salud hacia la salud universal.

Progress in trial registration in Latin America and the Caribbean, 2007-2013.

This descriptive study identifies trends in clinical trial registration in the World Health Organization International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP) for Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), from 2007-2013, and provides adjusted estimates for registration rates by population and publications (2007-2011). Trends and data are presented by subregion and language in interactive graphs, including annual registration rates by population (2007-2011) and publications (LILACS and MEDLINE) listed in SCIENTI Network (Science and Technology Indicators). Of the 11 945 clinical trials involving LAC countries, 8 282 were in South America, with Brazil leading at 4 070 (49%); 2 421 in North and Central America, with Mexico leading at 1 886 (78%); and 1 242 in the Caribbean, with Puerto Rico leading at 857 (69%). After adjusting by population and publication rates Chile, Panama, Argentina, and Peru led registration rates per 1 million inhabitants. Variations in the number of trials per year are quite substantial. Clinical trial registration increased in a steady yet inconsistent way. The implementation of the Policy on Research for Health has been followed by an increase in countries that require registration and have established clinical trial registries. However, there is room for improvement in adherence throughout LAC. Trial registration is offered gratis by Brazilian, Cuban, Peruvian, and United States registries, among others.

En este estudio descriptivo se establecen las tendencias en cuanto al registro de ensayos clínicos en la Plataforma de Registros Internacionales de Ensayos Clínicos (ICTRP) de la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS) en América Latina y el Caribe en el período 2007-2013, y se incluyen cálculos ajustados de las tasas de registro por población y por publicaciones (2007-2011). Las tendencias y los datos se presentan por subregiones e idiomas en gráficos interactivos, y además se incluyen las tasas anuales de registro por población (2007-2011) y publicaciones (LILACS y MEDLINE) que figuran en la Red ScienTi (indicadores de ciencia y tecnología). De los 11 945 ensayos clínicos realizados en países de América Latina y el Caribe, 8 282 tuvieron lugar en América del Sur, en donde Brasil lleva la delantera con 4 070 (49 %); 2 421 se realizaron en América del Norte y Centroamérica, donde México se ubica en primer lugar con 1 886 (78 %), y 1 242 se realizaron en el Caribe, donde la mayoría de los ensayos fueron en Puerto Rico, con un número de 857 (69 %). Después de ajustar las tasas por población y publicaciones, Chile, Panamá, Argentina y Perú tuvieron las tasas más altas de registro por 1 millón de habitantes. Hubo amplias variaciones en el número de ensayos clínicos por año.El registro de ensayos clínicos aumentó de manera constante, aunque no uniforme. La ejecución de la Política de investigación para la salud de la Organización Panamericana de la Salud (OPS) llevó a un aumento del número de países que han establecido registros de ensayos clínicos y que requieren que se realice este registro. Sin embargo, podría mejorarse la observancia de esa política en América Latina y el Caribe en su totalidad. El registro de ensayos es gratuito en Brasil, Cuba, Estados Unidos y Perú.

Estudo descritivo que identifica as tendências no registro de ensaios clínicos na Plataforma Internacional de Registro de Ensaios Clínicos (ICTRP) da Organização Mundial da Saúde (OMS) para América Latina e Caribe de 2007 a 2013, e apresenta estimativas ajustadas dos índices de registro por população e publicação (2007­2011). As tendências e os dados são apresentados por sub-região e idioma em gráficos interativos, incluindo os índices anuais de registro por população (2007­2011) e publicação (LILACS e MEDLINE) listada na SCIENTI Network (Science and Technology Indicators). Dos 11.945 ensaios clínicos realizados nos países da América Latina e Caribe, 8.282 foram conduzidos na América do Sul, na sua maioria (4.070) no Brasil (49%), 2.421 nas Américas Central e do Norte, na maior parte (1.886) no México (78%), e 1.242 no Caribe, em maior número (857) em Porto Rico (69%). Após o ajuste por população e publicação, Chile, Panamá, Argentina e Peru apresentaram os maiores índices de registro por 1 milhão de habitantes. A variação no número anual de estudos é bastante considerável.Verificou-se um crescimento estável, porém inconsistente, no registro de ensaios clínicos. Com a implementação da Política para pesquisa em saúde, aumentou o número de países em que o registro de ensaios clínicos é exigido e que implantaram registros próprios. No entanto, é possível melhorar ainda mais a adesão na América Latina e Caribe visto que este registro é gratuito no Brasil, Cuba, Peru e nos Estados Unidos, entre outros.

Pediatric cancer registries in Latin America: the case of Argentina's pediatric cancer registry.

Despite its low incidence, pediatric cancer makes up a significant portion of childhood illnesses. Yet information on pediatric cancer in Latin America is scarce. Since the early 2000s the World Health Organization (WHO) has been highlighting the role of cancer registries in cancer surveillance and control. This article describes the main aspects of pediatric cancer registration in Latin America, highlighting the successes of Argentina's national pediatric cancer registry, Registro Oncopediátrico Hospitalario Argentino (ROHA), which allows for better health care and contributes to improved outcomes for children with cancer, to provide a rationale for the expansion and enhancement of pediatric cancer registration in other Latin American countries.

A pesar de tener una incidencia baja, el cáncer pediátrico representa una proporción significativa de las enfermedades de la niñez. Sin embargo, en América Latina hay poca información al respecto. Desde comienzos del siglo XXI, la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS) ha puesto de relieve la función que tienen los registros oncológicos en la vigilancia y el control del cáncer. En este artículo se describen los principales aspectos de los registros de cáncer pediátrico en América Latina y se pone el acento en los éxitos del Registro Oncopediátrico Hospitalario Argentino (ROHA), que permite mejorar la atención de salud y ayuda a obtener mejores resultados en los niños con cáncer, lo cual puede servir de fundamento para la ampliación y el perfeccionamiento de los registros de cáncer pediátrico en otros países latinoamericanos.

Apesar da incidência baixa, o câncer em crianças representa uma parcela considerável das afecções infantis. Porém, existem poucos dados sobre o câncer em crianças na América Latina. Desde o princípio dos anos 2000, a Organização Mundial da Saúde (OMS) trabalha para reforçar o papel dos registros de câncer no controle e vigilância da doença. Este artigo examina as principais características dos registros do câncer em crianças na América Latina e põe em relevo os bons resultados obtidos com o registro nacional da Argentina (Registro Oncopediátrico Hospitalario Argentino, ROHA), como melhoria da assistência de saúde e dos desfechos aos pacientes pediátricos, servindo de base para a ampliação e o aperfeiçoamento do registro de câncer em crianças em outros países latino-americanos.

[Priority research agendas: a strategic resource for health in Latin America]. / Agendas de investigación priorizadas: un recurso estratégico para la salud en América Latina.

OBJECTIVE: Understand and analyze procedures used to create national integrated research agendas from 2007 to 2011 in Argentina, Guatemala, Mexico, Panama, and Paraguay. METHODS: Descriptive, cross-sectional study using an online survey of agenda preparation processes; specifically, development, integration, implementation, and use and dissemination of the agenda. RESULTS: The 45 respondents reported following specific methodologies for agenda construction and had a good opinion of organizational aspects with regard to prior information provided and balance among disciplines and stakeholders. Some 60% considered the coordinators impartial, although 25% mentioned biases favoring some subject; 42% received technical support from consultants, reading matter, and methodological guidelines; 40% engaged in subject-matter priority-setting; and 55% confirmed dissemination and communication of the agenda. However, only 22% reported inclusion of agenda topics in national calls for research proposals. CONCLUSIONS: In the countries studied, development of the health research agenda was characterized by prior planning and appropriate organization to achieve - consensus-based outcomes. Nevertheless, the agendas were not used in national calls for research proposals, reflecting lack of coordination in national health research systems and lack of connection between funders and researchers. It is recommended that stakeholders strengthen integration and advocacy efforts to modify processes and structures of agenda-based calls for research proposals.

Dynamic measurements of geographical accessibility considering traffic congestion using open data: a cross-sectional assessment for haemodialysis services in Cali, Colombia.

Background: Many cities with traffic congestion lack accessibility assessments accounting for traffic congestion and equity considerations but have disaggregated georeferenced municipal-level open data on health services, populations, and travel times big data. We convened a multistakeholder intersectoral collaborative group that developed a digital, web-based platform integrating open and big data to derive dynamic spatial-temporal accessibility measurements (DSTAM) for haemodialysis services. We worked with stakeholders and data scientists and considered people's places of residence, service locations, and travel time to the service with the shortest travel time. Additionally, we predicted the impacts of strategically introducing haemodialysis services where they optimise accessibility. Methods: Cross-sectional analyses of DSTAM, accounting for traffic congestion, were conducted using a web-based platform. This platform integrated traffic analysis zones, public census and health services datasets, and Google Distance Matrix API travel-time data. Predictive and prescriptive analytics identified optimal locations for new haemodialysis services and estimated improvements. Primary outcomes included the percentage of residents within a 20-min car drive of a haemodialysis service during peak and free-flow traffic congestion. Secondary outcomes focused on optimal locations to maximise accessibility with new services and potential improvements. Findings were disaggregated by sociodemographic characteristics, providing an equity perspective. The study in Cali, Colombia, used geographic and disaggregated sociodemographic data from the adjusted 2018 Colombian census. Predicted travel times were obtained for two weeks in 2020. Findings: There were substantial traffic variations. Congestion reduced accessibility, especially among marginalised groups. For 6-12 July, free-flow and peak-traffic accessibility rates were 95.2% and 45.0%, respectively. For 23-29 November, free-flow and peak traffic accessibility rates were 89.1% and 69.7%. The locations where new services would optimise accessibility had slight variation and would notably enhance accessibility and health equity. Interpretation: Establishing haemodialysis services in targeted areas has significant potential benefits. By increasing accessibility, it would enhance urban health and equity. Funding: No external or institutional funding was received.

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.

Enemas during labour.

BACKGROUND: Although the use of enemas during labour usually reflects the preference of the attending healthcare provider, enemas may cause discomfort for women. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of enemas applied during the first stage of labour on maternal and neonatal outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (17 May 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 5), PubMed (1966 to 17 May 2012), LILACS (17 May 2012), the Search Portal of the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (17 May 2012), Health Technology Assessment Program, UK (17 May 2012), Medical Research Council, UK (17 May 2012), The Wellcome Trust, UK (17 May 2012) and reference lists of retrieved articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which an enema was administered during the first stage of labour and which included assessment of possible neonatal or puerperal morbidity or mortality. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion.  MAIN RESULTS: Four RCTs (1917 women) met the inclusion criteria. One study was judged as having a low risk of bias. In the meta-analysis we conducted of two trials, we found no significant difference in infection rates for puerperal women (two RCTs; 594 women; risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence (CI) 0.42 to 1.04). No significant differences were found in neonatal umbilical infection rates (two RCTs; 592 women; RR 3.16, 95% CI 0.50 to 19.82; I² 0%. In addition, meta-analysis of two studies found that there were no significant differences in the degree of perineal tear between groups. Finally, meta-analysis of two trials found no significant differences in the mean duration of labour. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence provided by the four included RCTs shows that enemas do not have a significant beneficial effect on infection rates such as perineal wound infection or other neonatal infections and women's satisfaction. These findings speak against the routine use of enemas during labour, therefore, such practice should be discouraged.

Enemas during labour.

BACKGROUND: Although the use of enemas during labour usually reflects the preference of the attending healthcare provider, enemas may cause discomfort for women. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of enemas applied during the first stage of labour on maternal and neonatal outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 May 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 5), PubMed (1966 to 31 May 2013), LILACS (31 May 2013), the Search Portal of the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (31 May 2013), Health Technology Assessment Program, UK (31 May 2013), Medical Research Council, UK (31 May 2013), The Wellcome Trust, UK (31 May 2013) and reference lists of retrieved articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which an enema was administered during the first stage of labour and which included assessment of possible neonatal or puerperal morbidity or mortality. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion. MAIN RESULTS: Four RCTs (1917 women) met the inclusion criteria. One study was judged as having a low risk of bias. In the meta-analysis we conducted of two trials, we found no significant difference in infection rates for puerperal women (two RCTs; 594 women; risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence (CI) 0.42 to 1.04). No significant differences were found in neonatal umbilical infection rates (two RCTs; 592 women; RR 3.16, 95% CI 0.50 to 19.82; I(2) 0%. In addition, meta-analysis of two studies found that there were no significant differences in the degree of perineal tear between groups. Finally, meta-analysis of two trials found no significant differences in the mean duration of labour. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence provided by the four included RCTs shows that enemas do not have a significant beneficial effect on infection rates such as perineal wound infection or other neonatal infections and women's satisfaction. These findings speak against the routine use of enemas during labour, therefore, such practice should be discouraged.

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.

Dynamic accessibility by car to tertiary care emergency services in Cali, Colombia, in 2020: cross-sectional equity analyses using travel time big data from a Google API.

OBJECTIVES: To test a new approach to characterise accessibility to tertiary care emergency health services in urban Cali and assess the links between accessibility and sociodemographic factors relevant to health equity. DESIGN: The impact of traffic congestion on accessibility to tertiary care emergency departments was studied with an equity perspective, using a web-based digital platform that integrated publicly available digital data, including sociodemographic characteristics of the population and places of residence with travel times. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Cali, Colombia (population 2.258 million in 2020) using geographic and sociodemographic data. The study used predicted travel times downloaded for a week in July 2020 and a week in November 2020. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: The share of the population within a 15 min journey by car from the place of residence to the tertiary care emergency department with the shortest journey (ie, 15 min accessibility rate (15mAR)) at peak-traffic congestion hours. Sociodemographic characteristics were disaggregated for equity analyses. A time-series bivariate analysis explored accessibility rates versus housing stratification. RESULTS: Traffic congestion sharply reduces accessibility to tertiary emergency care (eg, 15mAR was 36.8% during peak-traffic hours vs 84.4% during free-flow hours for the week of 6-12 July 2020). Traffic congestion sharply reduces accessibility to tertiary emergency care. The greatest impact fell on specific ethnic groups, people with less educational attainment and those living in low-income households or on the periphery of Cali (15mAR: 8.1% peak traffic vs 51% free-flow traffic). These populations face longer average travel times to health services than the average population. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that health services and land use planning should prioritise travel times over travel distance and integrate them into urban planning. Existing technology and data can reveal inequities by integrating sociodemographic data with accurate travel times to health services estimates, providing the basis for valuable indicators.

Dynamic geographical accessibility assessments to improve health equity: protocol for a test case in Cali, Colombia.

This protocol proposes an approach to assessing the place of residence as a spatial determinant of health in cities where traffic congestion might impact health services accessibility. The study provides dynamic travel times presenting data in ways that help shape decisions and spur action by diverse stakeholders and sectors.  Equity assessments in geographical accessibility to health services typically rely on static metrics, such as distance or average travel times. This new approach uses dynamic spatial accessibility measures providing travel times from the place of residence to the health service with the shortest journey time. It will show the interplay between traffic congestion, accessibility, and health equity and should be used to inform urban and health services monitoring and planning. Available digitised data enable efficient and accurate accessibility measurements for urban areas using publicly available sources and provide disaggregated sociodemographic information and an equity perspective. Test cases are done for urgent and frequent care (i.e., repeated ambulatory care). Situational analyses will be done with cross-sectional urban assessments; estimated potential improvements will be made for one or two new services, and findings will inform recommendations and future studies. This study will use visualisations and descriptive statistics to allow non-specialized stakeholders to understand the effects of accessibility on populations and health equity. This includes "time-to-destination" metrics or the proportion of the people that can reach a service by car within a given travel time threshold from the place of residence. The study is part of the AMORE Collaborative Project, in which a diverse group of stakeholders seeks to address equity for accessibility to essential health services, including health service users and providers, authorities, and community members, including academia.

Treatments for iron-deficiency anaemia in pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Iron deficiency, the most common cause of anaemia in pregnancy worldwide, can be mild, moderate or severe. Severe anaemia can have very serious consequences for mothers and babies, but there is controversy about whether treating mild or moderate anaemia provides more benefit than harm. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of different treatments for anaemia in pregnancy attributed to iron deficiency (defined as haemoglobin less than 11 g/dL or other equivalent parameters) on maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (7 June 2011), CENTRAL (2011, Issue 5), PubMed (1966 to June 2011), the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (2 May 2011), Health Technology Assessment Program (HTA) (2 May 2011) and LATINREC (Colombia) (2 May 2011). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing treatments for anaemia in pregnancy attributed to iron deficiency. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We identified 23 trials, involving 3.198 women. We assessed their risk of bias. Three further studies identified are awaiting classification. MAIN RESULTS: Many of the trials were from low-income countries; they were generally small and frequently methodologically poor. They covered a very wide range of differing drugs, doses and routes of administration, making it difficult to pool data. Oral iron in pregnancy showed a reduction in the incidence of anaemia (risk ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval 0.26 to 0.55, one trial, 125 women) and better haematological indices than placebo (two trials). It was not possible to assess the effects of treatment by severity of anaemia. A trend was found between dose and reported adverse effects. Most trials reported no clinically relevant outcomes nor adverse effects. Although the intramuscular and intravenous routes produced better haematological indices in women than the oral route, no clinical outcomes were assessed and there were insufficient data on adverse effects, for example, on venous thrombosis and severe allergic reactions. Daily low-dose iron supplements may be effective at treating anaemia in pregnancy with less gastrointestinal side effects compared with higher doses. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite the high incidence and burden of disease associated with this condition, there is a paucity of good quality trials assessing clinical maternal and neonatal effects of iron administration in women with anaemia. Daily oral iron treatment improves haematological indices but causes frequent gastrointestinal adverse effects. Parenteral (intramuscular and intravenous) iron enhances haematological response, compared with oral iron, but there are concerns about possible important adverse effects (for intravenous treatment venous thrombosis and allergic reactions and for intramuscular treatment important pain, discolouration and allergic reactions). Large, good quality trials, assessing clinical outcomes (including adverse effects) as well as the effects of treatment by severity of anaemia are required.

Prospective registration and results disclosure of clinical trials in the Americas: a roadmap toward transparency.

The objective of this article is to propose a roadmap toward transparency of clinical trials in the Americas by their prospective registration and results disclosure. This will broaden access to more complete and accurate data and facilitate evidence-informed decision-making and participation in research. Consequently, it should have a positive impact on people's health and should promote trust in health research. Existing initiatives were identified, registration of trials was analyzed following the World Health Organization (WHO) standards on trial registration, and a roadmap is proposed to address the gaps in advancing transparency. The analysis shows that, in spite of numerous regional and country initiatives, clinical trials taking place in nonEnglish-speaking parts of the Americas are underregistered. A roadmap is proposed to enhance research governance and good research practice by improving the transparency of clinical trials. The proposed roadmap includes strategies for implementing WHO international standards for trial registration, for developing international standards of public disclosure of trial results, and for a potential role of the Pan American Health Organization.

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.