Effects of guaranteed basic income interventions on poverty-related outcomes in high-income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: High-income countries offer social assistance (welfare) programs to help alleviate poverty for people with little or no income. These programs have become increasingly conditional and stringent in recent decades based on the premise that transitioning people from government support to paid work will improve their circumstances. However, many people end up with low-paying and precarious jobs that may cause more poverty because they lose benefits such as housing subsidies and health and dental insurance, while incurring job-related expenses. Conditional assistance programs are also expensive to administer and cause stigma. A guaranteed basic income (GBI) has been proposed as a more effective approach for alleviating poverty, and several experiments have been conducted in high-income countries to investigate whether GBI leads to improved outcomes compared to existing social programs. Objectives: The aim of this review was to conduct a synthesis of quantitative evidence on GBI interventions in high-income countries, to compare the effectiveness of various types of GBI versus "usual care" (including existing social assistance programs) in improving poverty-related outcomes. Search Methods: Searches of 16 academic databases were conducted in May 2022, using both keywords and database-specific controlled vocabulary, without limits or restrictions on language or date. Sources of gray literature (conference, governmental, and institutional websites) were searched in September 2022. We also searched reference lists of review articles, citations of included articles, and tables of contents of relevant journals in September 2022. Hand searching for recent publications was conducted until December 2022. Selection Criteria: We included all quantitative study designs except cross-sectional (at one timepoint), with or without control groups. We included studies in high income countries with any population and with interventions meeting our criteria for GBI: unconditional, with regular payments in cash (not in-kind) that were fixed or predictable in amount. Although two primary outcomes of interest were selected a priori (food insecurity, and poverty level assessed using official, national, or international measures), we did not screen studies on the basis of reported outcomes because it was not possible to define all potentially relevant poverty-related outcomes in advance. Data Collection and Analysis: We followed the Campbell Collaboration conduct and reporting guidelines to ensure a rigorous methodology. The risk of bias was assessed across seven domains: confounding, selection, attrition, motivation, implementation, measurement, and analysis/reporting. We conducted meta-analyses where results could be combined; otherwise, we presented the results in tables. We reported effect estimates as standard mean differences (SMDs) if the included studies reported them or provided sufficient data for us to calculate them. To compare the effects of different types of interventions, we developed a GBI typology based on the characteristics of experimental interventions as well as theoretical conceptualizations of GBI. Eligible poverty-related outcomes were classified into categories and sub-categories, to facilitate the synthesis of the individual findings. Because most of the included studies analyzed experiments conducted by other researchers, it was necessary to divide our analysis according to the "experiment" stage (i.e., design, recruitment, intervention, data collection) and the "study" stage (data analysis and reporting of results). Main Results: Our searches yielded 24,476 records from databases and 80 from other sources. After screening by title and abstract, the full texts of 294 potentially eligible articles were retrieved and screened, resulting in 27 included studies on 10 experiments. Eight of the experiments were RCTs, one included both an RCT site and a "saturation" site, and one used a repeated cross-sectional design. The duration ranged from one to 5 years. The control groups in all 10 experiments received "usual care" (i.e., no GBI intervention). The total number of participants was unknown because some of the studies did not report exact sample sizes. Of the studies that did, the smallest had 138 participants and the largest had 8019. The risk of bias assessments found "some concerns" for at least one domain in all 27 studies and "high risk" for at least one domain in 25 studies. The risk of bias was assessed as high in 21 studies due to attrition and in 22 studies due to analysis and reporting bias. To compare the interventions, we developed a classification framework of five GBI types, four of which were implemented in the experiments, and one that is used in new experiments now underway. The included studies reported 176 poverty-related outcomes, including one pre-defined primary outcome: food insecurity. The second primary outcome (poverty level assessed using official, national, or international measures) was not reported in any of the included studies. We classified the reported outcomes into seven categories: food insecurity (as a category), economic/material, physical health, psychological/mental health, social, educational, and individual choice/agency. Food insecurity was reported in two studies, both showing improvements (SMD = -0.57, 95% CI: -0.65 to -0.49, and SMD = -0.41, 95% CI: -0.57 to -0.26) which were not pooled because of different study designs. We conducted meta-analyses on four secondary outcomes that were reported in more than one study: subjective financial well-being, self-rated overall physical health, self-rated life satisfaction, and self-rated mental distress. Improvements were reported, except for overall physical health or if the intervention was similar to existing social assistance. The results for the remaining 170 outcomes, each reported in only one study, were summarized in tables by category and subcategory. Adverse effects were reported in some studies, but only for specific subgroups of participants, and not consistently, so these results may have been due to chance. Authors' Conclusions: The results of the included studies were difficult to synthesize because of the heterogeneity in the reported outcomes. This was due in part to poverty being multidimensional, so outcomes covered various aspects of life (economic, social, psychological, educational, agency, mental and physical health). Evidence from future studies would be easier to assess if outcomes were measured using more common, validated instruments. Based on our analysis of the included studies, a supplemental type of GBI (provided along with existing programs) may be effective in alleviating poverty-related outcomes. This approach may also be safer than a wholesale reform of existing social assistance approaches, which could have unintended consequences.

Antithrombotic therapy for durable left ventricular assist devices: protocol for a living systematic review with indirect comparison/network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have emerged as a successful treatment option for patients with end-stage heart failure. Compared with the best medical therapy, LVADs improve survival and enhance functional capacity and quality of life. However, two major complications compromise this patient population's outcomes: thrombosis and bleeding. Despite technological innovations and better hemocompatibility, these devices alter the rheology, triggering the coagulation cascade and, therefore, require antithrombotic therapy. Anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapies represent the current standard of care. Still, inconsistency in the literature exists, especially whether antiplatelet therapy is required, whether direct oral anticoagulants can replace vitamin K antagonists and even whether phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors with their antithrombotic effects could be added to the regimen of anticoagulation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will perform a living systematic review with network meta-analysis and indirect comparison between current antithrombotic therapies, which have and have not been directly compared within clinical trials and observational studies. We will systematically search the following electronic sources: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE) and Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE). We will exclusively examine studies published in English from 2016 to the present. Studies conducted before 2016 will be omitted since our primary focus is evaluating continuous flow devices. Two independent reviewers will assess the articles by title, abstract and full text; any disagreement will be resolved through discussion, and a third reviewer will be involved if necessary. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool will be used to assess the risk of bias. We will then conduct a pairwise meta-analysis; if the assumption of transitivity is satisfied, we will proceed with network meta-analysis using Bayesian methodology. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Formal ethical approval is not required as no primary data are collected. This systematic review and network meta-analysis will delineate the risks of stroke, thromboembolic events, pump thrombosis, gastrointestinal bleeding and mortality in patients equipped with LVADs who are subjected to various antithrombotic regimens. The findings will be disseminated via a peer-reviewed publication and presented at conference meetings. This will enhance clinical practice and guide future research on anticoagulation strategies within this distinct patient cohort. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023465288.

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.

PROTOCOL: Effects of social prescribing for older adults: An evidence and gap map.

Objectives This is the protocol for an evidence and gap map. The objectives are as follows: The aim of this evidence and gap map is to map the available evidence on the effectiveness of social prescribing interventions addressing a non-medical, health-related social need for older adults in any setting. Specific objectives are as follows: 1.To identify existing evidence from primary studies and systematic reviews on the effects of community-based interventions that address non-medical, health-related social needs of older adults to improve their health and wellbeing.2.To identify research evidence gaps for new high-quality primary studies and systematic reviews.3.To highlight evidence of health equity considerations from included primary studies and systematic reviews.

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.

Operationalizing the GRADE-equity criterion to inform guideline recommendations: application to a medical cannabis guideline.

OBJECTIVES: Incorporating health equity considerations into guideline development often requires information beyond that gathered through traditional evidence synthesis methodology. This article outlines an operationalization plan for the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE)-equity criterion to gather and assess evidence from primary studies within systematic reviews, enhancing guideline recommendations to promote equity. We demonstrate its use in a clinical guideline on medical cannabis for chronic pain. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We reviewed GRADE guidance and resources recommended by team members regarding the use of evidence for equity considerations, drafted an operationalization plan, and iteratively refined it through team discussion and feedback and piloted it on a medicinal cannabis guideline. RESULTS: We propose a seven-step approach: 1) identify disadvantaged populations, 2) examine available data for specific populations, 3) evaluate population baseline risk for primary outcomes, 4) assess representation of these populations in primary studies, 5) appraise analyses, 6) note barriers to implementation of effective interventions for these populations, and 7) suggest supportive strategies to facilitate implementation of effective interventions. CONCLUSION: Our approach assists guideline developers in recognizing equity considerations, particularly in resource-constrained settings. Its application across various guideline topics can verify its feasibility and necessary adjustments.

Effectiveness of nutrition counseling for pregnant women in low- and middle-income countries to improve maternal and infant behavioral, nutritional, and health outcomes: A systematic review.

Background: Nutritional counseling, which includes two-way interactive education, has been hypothesized to improve the health and nutritional status of pregnant women, but little is known about the impact such practice of care might have on maternal and infant health and behavioral outcomes of pregnant women living in low income, low-middle income, and upper-middle-income countries (LMIC)s. Objectives: We conducted a systematic review to appraise the effectiveness and impact on health equity of two-way nutritional counseling practices in LMICs on maternal and infant behavioral, nutritional, and health outcomes. Search Methods: We conducted electronic searches for relevant studies on Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsychInfo, and the Cochrane CENTRAL for randomized and non-randomized trials on the effectiveness of two-way interactive nutritional counseling among pregnant women from the date of database inception up to June 22, 2021. In addition, we searched references of included studies in systematic reviews, gray literature resources, and unpublished studies or reports that satisfied our eligibility criteria using a focused Google search. Selection Criteria: We included randomized and non-randomized controlled studies (NRS), controlled before and after, and interrupted time series that assessed the effectiveness of two-way interactive nutrition counseling targeting pregnant women in LMICs. Data Collection and Analysis: Data extraction and risk of bias were conducted in duplicate. The risk of bias (ROB) for randomized trials (RCT) was assessed according to the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews, and ROB for NRS was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS). RCT and NRS were meta-analyzed separately. Main Results: Our search identified 6418 records and 52 studies met our inclusion criteria, but only 28 were used in the quantitative analysis. Twenty-eight studies were conducted in Asia, the most in Iran. Eight studies were conducted in Africa. Two-way interactive nutritional counseling during pregnancy may improve dietary caloric intake (mean difference [MD]: 81.65 calories, 95% confidence interval [CI], 15.37-147.93, three RCTs; I 2 = 42%; moderate certainty of evidence using GRADE assessment), may reduce hemorrhage (relative risk [RR]: 0.63; 95% CI, 0.25-1.54, two RCTs; I 2 = 40%; very low certainty of evidence using GRADE assessment), may improve protein (MD: 10.44 g, 95% CI, 1.83-19.05, two RCTs; I 2 = 95%; high certainty of evidence using GRADE assessment), fat intake (MD: 3.42 g, 95% CI, -0.20 to 7.04, two RCTs; I 2 = 0%; high certainty of evidence using GRADE assessment), and may improve gestational weight gain within recommendations (RR: 1.84; 95% CI, 1.10-3.09, three RCTs; I 2 = 69%). Nutrition counseling probably leads to the initiation of breastfeeding immediately after birth (RR: 1.72; 95% CI, 1.42-2.09, one RCT). There was little to no effect on reducing anemia (RR: 0.77; 95% CI, 0.50-1.20, three RCTs; I 2 = 67%; very low certainty of evidence using GRADE assessment) risk of stillbirths (RR: 0.81; 95% CI, 0.52-1.27, three RCTs; I 2 = 0%; moderate certainty of evidence using GRADE assessment) and risk of cesarean section delivery (RR: 0.96; 95% CI, 0.76-1.20, four RCTs; I 2 = 36%; moderate certainty of evidence using GRADE assessment). Authors' Conclusions: Our review highlights improvements in maternal behavioral and health outcomes through interactive nutrition counseling during pregnancy. However, we are uncertain about the effects of nutrition counseling due to the low certainty of evidence and a low number of studies for some key outcomes. Moreover, the effects on health equity remain unknown. More methodologically rigorous trials that focus on a precise selection of outcomes driven by the theory of change of nutrition counseling to improve maternal and infant behavioral and health outcomes and consider equity are required.

Using PROGRESS-plus to identify current approaches to the collection and reporting of equity-relevant data: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were to identify what and how data relating to the social determinants of health are collected and reported in equity-relevant studies and map these data to the PROGRESS-Plus framework. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We performed a scoping review. We ran two systematic searches of MEDLINE and Embase for equity-relevant studies published during 2021. We included studies in any language without limitations to participant characteristics. Included studies were required to have collected and reported at least two participant variables relevant to evaluating individual-level social determinants of health. We applied the PROGRESS-Plus framework to identify and organize these data. RESULTS: We extracted data from 200 equity-relevant studies, providing 962 items defined by PROGRESS-Plus. A median of 4 (interquartile range = 2) PROGRESS-Plus items were reported in the included studies. 92% of studies reported age; 78% reported sex/gender; 65% reported educational attainment; 49% reported socioeconomic status; 45% reported race; 44% reported social capital; 33% reported occupation; 14% reported place and 9% reported religion. CONCLUSION: Our synthesis demonstrated that researchers currently collect a limited range of equity-relevant data, but usefully provides a range of examples spanning PROGRESS-Plus to inform the development of improved, standardized practices.

Definitions, terminology, and related concepts of "racial health equity": a scoping review protocol.

BACKGROUND: In the USA, access to quality healthcare varies greatly across racial and ethnic groups, resulting in significant health disparities. A new term, "racial health equity" (RHE), is increasingly reported in the medical literature, but there is currently no consensus definition of the term. Additionally, related terms such as "health disparities," "health inequities," and "equality" have been inconsistently used when defining RHE. METHODS: The primary purpose of this scoping review is to investigate the current use and underlying concepts used to define racial health equity. The study will address two key questions: (1) "What terminology and definitions have been used to characterize RHE?" and (2) "What knowledge gaps and challenges are present in the current state of RHE research and theory?" The review will collect and analyze data from three sources: (1) websites from key national and international health organizations, (2) theoretical and narrative published articles, and (3) evidence synthesis studies addressing interventions targeting racial health equity and minority stakeholder engagement. DISCUSSION: Defining "racial health equity" and related terminology is the first step to advancing racial health equity within the USA. This review aims to offer an improved understanding of RHE constructs and definitions, bringing greater unity to national racial health equity research efforts across disciplines. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This protocol is registered with the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/7pvzq .

Protocol for the development of guidance for collaborator and partner engagement in health care evidence syntheses.

BACKGROUND: Involving collaborators and partners in research may increase relevance and uptake, while reducing health and social inequities. Collaborators and partners include people and groups interested in health research: health care providers, patients and caregivers, payers of health research, payers of health services, publishers, policymakers, researchers, product makers, program managers, and the public. Evidence syntheses inform decisions about health care services, treatments, and practice, which ultimately affect health outcomes. Our objectives are to: A. Identify, map, and synthesize qualitative and quantitative findings related to engagement in evidence syntheses B. Explore how engagement in evidence synthesis promotes health equity C. Develop equity-oriented guidance on methods for conducting, evaluating, and reporting engagement in evidence syntheses METHODS: Our diverse, international team will develop guidance for engagement with collaborators and partners throughout multiple sequential steps using an integrated knowledge translation approach: 1. Reviews. We will co-produce 1 scoping review, 3 systematic reviews and 1 evidence map focusing on (a) methods, (b) barriers and facilitators, (c) conflict of interest considerations, (d) impacts, and (e) equity considerations of engagement in evidence synthesis. 2. Methods study, interviews, and survey. We will contextualise the findings of step 1 by assessing a sample of evidence syntheses reporting on engagement with collaborators and partners and through conducting interviews with collaborators and partners who have been involved in producing evidence syntheses. We will use these findings to develop draft guidance checklists and will assess agreement with each item through an international survey. 3. CONSENSUS: The guidance checklists will be co-produced and finalised at a consensus meeting with collaborators and partners. 4. DISSEMINATION: We will develop a dissemination plan with our collaborators and partners and work collaboratively to improve adoption of our guidance by key organizations. CONCLUSION: Our international team will develop guidance for collaborator and partner engagement in health care evidence syntheses. Incorporating partnership values and expectations may result in better uptake, potentially reducing health inequities.

Equity issues rarely addressed in the development of COVID-19 formal recommendations and good practice statements: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To identify COVID-19 actionable statements (e.g., recommendations) focused on specific disadvantaged populations in the living map of COVID-19 recommendations (eCOVIDRecMap) and describe how health equity was assessed in the development of the formal recommendations. METHODS: We employed the place of residence, race or ethnicity or culture, occupation, gender or sex, religion, education, socio-economic status, and social capital-Plus framework to identify statements focused on specific disadvantaged populations. We assessed health equity considerations in the evidence to decision frameworks (EtD) of formal recommendations for certainty of evidence and impact on health equity criteria according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations criteria. RESULTS: We identified 16% (124/758) formal recommendations and 24% (186/819) good practice statements (GPS) that were focused on specific disadvantaged populations. Formal recommendations (40%, 50/124) and GPS (25%, 47/186) most frequently focused on children. Seventy-six percent (94/124) of the recommendations were accompanied with EtDs. Over half (55%, 52/94) of those considered indirectness of the evidence for disadvantaged populations. Considerations in impact on health equity criterion most frequently involved implementation of the recommendation for disadvantaged populations (17%, 16/94). CONCLUSION: Equity issues were rarely explicitly considered in the development COVID-19 formal recommendations focused on specific disadvantaged populations. Guidance is needed to support the consideration of health equity in guideline development during health emergencies.

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.

Effectiveness of interventions to address different types of vulnerabilities in community-dwelling older adults: An umbrella review.

Background: Frailty, social isolation, loneliness, and poverty may render older adults vulnerable to social or health stressors. It is imperative to identify effective interventions to address them especially in the context of COVID-19 pandemic. Objective: To identify effective community-based interventions to address frailty, social isolation, loneliness, and poverty among community-dwelling older adults. Design: Umbrella review. Data Source: We systematically searched PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, EBM-Reviews, CINAHL via EBSCO, and APA PsycInfo via Ovid from January 2009 to December 2022. Eligibility Criteria: We included systematic reviews or quantitative reviews of non-pharmacologic interventions targeting community-dwelling older adults. Data Selection Extraction and Management: Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts, performed data extraction and appraised the methodological quality of the reviews. We used a narrative synthesis approach to summarize and interpret the findings. We assessed the methodological quality of the studies using AMSTAR 2.0 tool. Results: We identified 27 reviews incorporating 372 unique primary studies that met our inclusion criteria. Ten of the reviews included studies conducted in low-middle-income countries. Twelve reviews (46%, 12/26) included interventions that addressed frailty. Seventeen reviews (65%, 17/26) included interventions that addressed either social isolation or loneliness. Eighteen reviews included studies with single component interventions, while 23 reviews included studies with multi-component interventions. Interventions including protein supplementation combined with physical activity may improve outcomes including frailty status, grip strength, and body weight. Physical activity alone or in combination with diet may prevent frailty. Additionally, physical activity may improve social functioning and interventions using digital technologies may decrease social isolation and loneliness. We did not find any review of interventions addressing poverty among older adults. We also noted that few reviews addressed multiple vulnerabilities within the same study, specifically addressed vulnerability among ethnic and sexual minority groups, or examined interventions that engaged communities and adapted programs to local needs. Conclusion: Evidence from reviews support diets, physical activity, and digital technologies to improve frailty, social isolation or loneliness. However, interventions examined were primarily conducted under optimal conditions. There is a need for further interventions in community settings and conducted under real world settings in older adults living with multiple vulnerabilities.

The 'what' and 'how' of screening for social needs in healthcare settings: a scoping review.

Background: Adverse social determinants of health give rise to individual-level social needs that have the potential to negatively impact health. Screening patients to identify unmet social needs is becoming more widespread. A review of the content of currently available screening tools is warranted. The aim of this scoping review was to determine what social needs categories are included in published Social Needs Screening Tools that have been developed for use in primary care settings, and how these social needs are screened. Methods: We pre-registered the study on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/dqan2/). We searched MEDLINE and Embase from 01/01/2010 to 3/05/2022 to identify eligible studies reporting tools designed for use in primary healthcare settings. Two reviewers independently screened studies, a single reviewer extracted data. We summarised the characteristics of included studies descriptively and calculated the number of studies that collected data relevant to specific social needs categories. We identified sub-categories to classify the types of questions relevant to each of the main categories. Results: We identified 420 unique citations, and 27 were included. Nine additional studies were retrieved by searching for tools that were used or referred to in excluded studies. Questions relating to food insecurity and the physical environment in which a person lives were the most frequently included items (92-94% of tools), followed by questions relating to economic stability and aspects of social and community context (81%). Seventy-five percent of the screening tools included items that evaluated five or more social needs categories (mean 6.5; standard deviation 1.75). One study reported that the tool had been 'validated'; 16 reported 'partial' validation; 12 reported that the tool was 'not validated' and seven studies did not report validation processes or outcomes.

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.

Good or best practice statements: proposal for the operationalisation and implementation of GRADE guidance.

An evidence-based approach is considered the gold standard for health decision-making. Sometimes, a guideline panel might judge the certainty that the desirable effects of an intervention clearly outweigh its undesirable effects as high, but the body of supportive evidence is indirect. In such cases, the application of the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach for grading the strength of recommendations is inappropriate. Instead, the GRADE Working Group has recommended developing ungraded best or good practice statement (GPS) and developed guidance under which circumsances they would be appropriate.Through an evaluation of COVID-1- related recommendations on the eCOVID Recommendation Map (COVID-19.recmap.org), we found that recommendations qualifying a GPS were widespread. However, guideline developers failed to label them as GPS or transparently report justifications for their development. We identified ways to improve and facilitate the operationalisation and implementation of the GRADE guidance for GPS.Herein, we propose a structured process for the development of GPSs that includes applying a sequential order for the GRADE guidance for developing GPS. This operationalisation considers relevant evidence-to-decision criteria when assessing the net consequences of implementing the statement, and reporting information supporting judgments for each criterion. We also propose a standardised table to facilitate the identification of GPS and reporting of their development. This operationalised guidance, if endorsed by guideline developers, may palliate some of the shortcomings identified. Our proposal may also inform future updates of the GRADE guidance for GPS.

Equity Considerations in COVID-19 Vaccination Studies of Individuals With Autoimmune Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to examine the extent to which populations experiencing inequities were considered in studies of COVID-19 vaccination in individuals with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIRDs). METHODS: We included all studies (n = 19) from an ongoing Cochrane living systematic review on COVID-19 vaccination in patients with AIRDs. We used the PROGRESS-Plus framework (place of residence, race/ethnicity, occupation, gender/sex, religion, education, socioeconomic status, and social capital, plus: age, multimorbidity, and health literacy) to identify factors that stratify health outcomes. We assessed equity considerations in relation to differences in COVID-19 baseline risk, eligibility criteria, and description of participant characteristics and attrition, controlling for confounding factors, subgroup analyses, and applicability of findings. RESULTS: All 19 studies were cohort studies that followed individuals with AIRDs after vaccination. Three studies (16%) described differences in baseline risk for COVID-19 across age. Two studies (11%) defined eligibility criteria based on occupation and age. All 19 studies described participant age and sex. Twelve studies (67%) controlled for age and/or sex as confounders. Eight studies (47%) conducted subgroup analyses across at least 1 PROGRESS-Plus factor, most commonly age. Ten studies (53%) interpreted applicability in relation to at least 1 PROGRESS-Plus factor, most commonly age (47%), then ethnicity (16%), sex (16%), and multimorbidity (11%). CONCLUSION: Sex and age were the most frequently considered PROGRESS-Plus factors in studies of COVID-19 vaccination in individuals with AIRDs. The generalizability of evidence to populations experiencing inequities is uncertain. Future COVID-19 vaccine studies should report participant characteristics in more detail to inform guideline recommendations.

Identifying Health Equity Factors That Influence the Public's Perception of COVID-19 Health Information and Recommendations: A Scoping Review.

The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted global public health and public trust in health recommendations. Trust in health information may waver in the context of health inequities. The objective of this scoping review is to map evidence on public perceptions of COVID-19 prevention information using the PROGRESS-Plus health equity framework. We systematically searched the MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycInfo, and Embase databases from January 2020 to July 2021. We identified 792 citations and 31 studies published in 15 countries that met all inclusion criteria. The majority (30/31; 96.7%) of the studies used an observational design (74.2% cross-sectional, 16.1% cohort, 6.5% case study, 3.2% experimental trials). Most studies (61.3%) reported on perception, understanding, and uptake, and 35.5% reported on engagement, compliance, and adherence to COVID-19 measures. The most frequently reported sources of COVID-related information were social media, TV, news (newspapers/news websites), and government sources. We identified five important equity factors related to public trust and uptake of recommendations: education and health literacy (19 studies; 61.3%), gender (15 studies; 48.4%), age (15 studies; 48.4%), socioeconomic status (11 studies; 35.5%), and place of residence (10 studies; 32.3%). Our review suggests that equity factors play a role in public perception of COVID-19 information and recommendations. A future systematic review could be conducted to estimate the impact of equity factors on perception and behavior outcomes.

How Is Health Equity Assessed in Cochrane Musculoskeletal Reviews?

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the extent to which Cochrane Musculoskeletal systematic reviews assess and analyze health equity considerations. METHODS: We included Cochrane Musculoskeletal systematic reviews that included trials with participants aged ≥ 50 years and that were published from 2015 to 2020. We assessed the extent to which reviews considered health equity in the description of the population in the PICO (Patient/Population - Intervention - Comparison/Comparator - Outcome) framework, data analysis (planned and conducted), description of participant characteristics, summary of findings, and applicability of results using the PROGRESS-Plus framework. The PROGRESS acronym stands for place of residence (rural or urban), race/ethnicity/culture/language, occupation, gender/sex, religion, education, socioeconomic status, and social capital, and Plus represents age, disability, relationship features, time-dependent relationships, comorbidities, and health literacy. RESULTS: In total, 52 systematic reviews met our inclusion criteria. At least 1 element of PROGRESS-Plus was considered in 90% (47/52) of the reviews regarding the description of participants and in 85% (44/52) of reviews regarding question formulation. For participant description, the most reported factors were age (47/52, 90%) and sex (45/52, 87%). In total, 8 (15%) reviews planned to analyze outcomes by sex, age, and comorbidities. Only 1 had sufficient data to carry this out. In total, 19 (37%) reviews discussed the applicability of the results to 1 or more PROGRESS-Plus factor, most frequently across sex (12/52, 23%) and age (9/52, 17%). CONCLUSION: Sex and age were the most reported PROGRESS-Plus factors in any sections of the Cochrane Musculoskeletal reviews. We suggest a template for reporting participant characteristics that authors of reviews believe may influence outcomes. This could help patients and practitioners make judgments about applicability.