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.
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.
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.
Health Equity , Motivation , Humans , Pandemics , Health Inequities , Publications
BACKGROUND: Raynaud's phenomenon is a vasodilatory phenomenon characterised by digital pallor, cyanosis, and pain of the extremities. Primary Raynaud's phenomenon has no underlying disease associated with it, while secondary Raynaud's phenomenon is associated with connective tissue disorders such as systemic sclerosis. Systemic sclerosis causes fibrosis and commonly affects the skin and internal organs such as the gastrointestinal tract, lungs, kidney, and heart. Phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors (PDE5i) are a class of drugs that increases blood flow to the extremities and may be beneficial in the treatment of Raynaud's phenomenon. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of PDE5i compared to placebo for the treatment of Raynaud's phenomenon. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, and clinical trial registries up to June 2022. We did not apply any language restrictions. We searched the bibliographies of retrieved articles and contacted key experts in the field for additional and unpublished data. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PDE5i to placebo in people with primary and secondary Raynaud's phenomenon. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: This review included nine RCTs which ranged in duration from four to eight weeks and included a total of 411 participants. The majority had Raynaud's phenomenon secondary to systemic sclerosis. Tadalafil was assessed in four studies, sildenafil in three studies, vardenafil in one study, and a new PDE5 inhibitor known as "PF-00489791" in one study. Three studies were parallel design and six studies were cross-over. The frequency of attacks per week was 24 with placebo and PDE5i reduced the frequency of attacks by an average of three attacks per week (mean difference (MD) -3.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.15 to -1.00; 8 studies; low-certainty evidence). The duration of attacks per day was 55 minutes with placebo and PDE5i reduced the duration of attacks by an average of five minutes (MD -5.31, 95% CI -8.90 to -1.71; 8 studies; low-certainty evidence). Very low-certainty evidence from one study with eight participants showed severity of Raynaud's attacks (assessed on a 10 cm visual analogue scale with lower scores indicating less severity) was 20% lower with a PDE5i (3.7 with placebo compared to 1.6 with treatment; MD -2.1, 95% CI -2.7 to 1.4; very low-certainty evidence). Pain and patient global assessment were assessed on a 10 cm visual analogue scale with lower scores indicating improvement. Low-certainty evidence showed that the use of PDE5i may result in little to no difference compared to placebo in reducing the average pain of Raynaud's attacks (3 to 2.9; MD -0.10, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.57; 4 studies). Global scores were 36% lower with the use of a PDE5i compared to placebo (9.2 to 5.6; MD -3.59, 95% CI -4.45 to -2.73; 1 study, 24 participants; low-certainty evidence). The rate of withdrawals during treatment with PDE5i ranged from 4% to 20% compared with 2% in the placebo group in five studies. Four studies reported no withdrawals due to adverse events. Seven studies reported no serious adverse events. The rate of serious adverse events reported in two studies ranged from 2% during treatment to 4% with placebo. The majority of the studies were judged as low or unclear risk of bias for selection, performance, and detection bias. Almost half were judged at high risk of attrition bias and unclear risk for selective reporting bias. We downgraded frequency of attacks, duration of attacks, pain intensity, and patient global assessment for small sample sizes and concerns about inconsistency and graded each as low certainty of evidence. We downgraded severity of attacks to very low certainty due to serious concerns about imprecision and publication bias. We downgraded withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events to moderate certainty of evidence due to a low number of reported events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on low-certainty evidence, PDE5i may reduce the frequency of attacks of Raynaud's phenomenon by a small amount per week, result in a small reduction in the duration of attack, improve patients' global assessment of their disease, and result in little to no difference in pain. PDE5i probably result in little or no difference in serious adverse events but slightly increase the likelihood of withdrawing from treatment due to an adverse event.
Phosphodiesterase 5 Inhibitors , Scleroderma, Systemic , Humans , Pain , Phosphodiesterase 5 Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Sample Size , Scleroderma, Systemic/complications , Scleroderma, Systemic/drug therapy
Background: Social isolation and loneliness are more common in older adults and are associated with a serious impact on their well-being, mental health, physical health, and longevity. They are a public health concern highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions, hence the need for digital technology tools to enable remotely delivered interventions to alleviate the impact of social isolation and loneliness during the COVID-19 restrictions. Objectives: To map available evidence on the effects of digital interventions to mitigate social isolation and/or loneliness in older adults in all settings except hospital settings. Search Methods: We searched the following databases from inception to May 16, 2021, with no language restrictions. Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, APA PsycInfo via Ovid, CINAHL via EBSCO, Web of Science via Clarivate, ProQuest (all databases), International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS) via ProQuest, EBSCO (all databases except CINAHL), Global Index Medicus, and Epistemonikos. Selection Criteria: Titles and abstracts and full text of potentially eligible articles were independently screened in duplicate following the eligibility criteria. Data Collection and Analysis: We developed and pilot tested a data extraction code set in Eppi-Reviewer and data were individually extracted and coded based on an intervention-outcome framework which was also used to define the dimensions of the evidence and gap map. Main Results: We included 200 articles (103 primary studies and 97 systematic reviews) that assessed the effects of digital interventions to reduce social isolation and/or loneliness in older adults. Most of the systematic reviews (72%) were classified as critically low quality, only 2% as high quality and 25% were published since the COVID-19 pandemic. The evidence is unevenly distributed with clusters predominantly in high-income countries and none in low-income countries. The most common interventions identified are digital interventions to enhance social interactions with family and friends and the community via videoconferencing and telephone calls. Digital interventions to enhance social support, particularly socially assistive robots, and virtual pets were also common. Most interventions focused on reducing loneliness and depression and improving quality of life of older adults. Major gaps were identified in community level outcomes and process indicators. No included studies or reviews assessed affordability or digital divide although the value of accessibility and barriers caused by digital divide were discussed in three primary studies and three reviews. Adverse effects were reported in only two studies and six reviews. No study or review included participants from the LGBTQIA2S+ community and only one study restricted participants to 80 years and older. Very few described how at-risk populations were recruited or conducted any equity analysis to assess differences in effects for populations experiencing inequities across PROGRESS-Plus categories. Authors' Conclusions: The restrictions placed on people during the pandemic have shone a spotlight onto social isolation and loneliness, particularly for older adults. This evidence and gap map shows available evidence on the effectiveness of digital interventions for reducing social isolation or loneliness in older adults. Although the evidence is relatively large and recent, it is unevenly distributed and there is need for more high-quality research. This map can guide researchers and funders to consider areas of major gaps as priorities for further research.
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.
Delivery of Health Care , Health Facilities , Humans , Health Personnel
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.
Health Equity , Humans , Checklist , Consensus , MEDLINE , Molecular Epidemiology , Research Design , Observational Studies as Topic
BACKGROUND: There are meaningful gaps in equitable access to Primary Health Care (PHC), especially for vulnerable populations after widespread reforms in Western countries. The Innovative Models Promoting Access-to-Care Transformation (IMPACT) research program is a Canadian-Australian collaboration that aims to improve access to PHC for vulnerable populations. Relationships were developed with stakeholders in six regions across Canada and Australia where access-related needs could be identified. The most promising interventions would be implemented and tested to address the needs identified. This realist review was conducted to understand how community coalition and outreach (e.g., mobile or pop-up) services improve access for underserved vulnerable residents. OBJECTIVE: To inform the development and delivery of an innovative intervention to increase access to PHC for vulnerable populations. METHODS: A realist review was conducted in collaboration with the Local Innovative Partnership (LIP) research team and the IMPACT research members who conducted the review. We performed an initial comprehensive systematic search using MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library up to October 19, 2015, and updated it on August 8, 2020. Studies were included if they focused on interventions to improve access to PHC using community coalition, outreach services or mobile delivery methods. We included Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs), and systematic reviews. Studies were screened by two independent reviewers and the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework was used for data extraction and framework analysis to obtain themes. The LIP research team was also allowed to suggest additional papers not included at screening. RESULTS: We included 43 records, comprising 31 RCTs, 11 systematic reviews, and 1 case control study that was added by the LIP research team. We identified three main themes of PHC interventions to promote access for vulnerable residents, including: 1) tailoring of materials and services decreases barriers to primary health care, 2) services offered where vulnerable populations gather increases the "reach" of the interventions, 3) partnerships and collaborations lead to positive health outcomes. In addition, implementation designs and reporting elements should be considered. CONCLUSION: Realist reviews can help guide the development of locally adapted primary health care interventions.
This is the protocol for an evidence and gap map. The objectives are as follows: This EGM aims to map available evidence on the effects of in-person interventions to reduce social isolation and/or loneliness across all age groups in all settings.
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.
Health Inequities , Observational Studies as Topic , Social Justice , Humans , COVID-19 , Pandemics , Research Design , Sustainable Development , Indigenous Peoples
CONTEXT: Many patients with osteoarthritis (OA) develop range of motion (ROM) restrictions in their affected joints (contractures), associated with worse outcomes and rising healthcare costs. Effective treatment guidance for lost ROM in OA-affected joints is lacking. OBJECTIVE: A systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the effectiveness of stretching and/or bracing protocols on native (nonoperated) joint ROM in the setting of radiographically diagnosed OA. DATA SOURCES: Seven databases, English-language. STUDY SELECTION: Studies including participants with radiographically diagnosed OA in any native joint evaluating the effect of stretching or bracing on ROM. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 2. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently screened articles for inclusion and assessed risk of bias in included trials. Primary outcomes were ROM, pain, and adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: We identified 6284 articles. A total of 9 randomized controlled trials, all evaluating the knee, met eligibility criteria. For stretching, 3 pooled studies reported total ROM, which improved by mean difference (MD) of 9.3° (95% CI 5.0°,13.5°) versus controls. Two pooled studies showed improved knee flexion ROM (MD 10.8° [7.3°,14.2°]) versus controls. Five studies were pooled for knee extension with mean improvement 9.1° [3.4°,14.8°] versus controls. Seven pooled studies showed reduced pain (standardized MD 1.9 [1.2,2.6]). One study reported improved knee extension of 3.7° [2.9°,4.5°] with use of a device. No studies used orthoses. One study reported on AEs, with none noted. Performance bias was present in all included studies, and only 3 studies clearly reported blinding of outcome assessors. Strength of evidence for primary outcomes was considered moderate. CONCLUSION: There was moderate-quality evidence that stretching is an effective strategy for improving knee total, flexion and extension ROM, and pain. Our findings suggest that stretching to regain joint ROM in OA is not futile and that stretching appears to be an appropriate conservative intervention to improve patient outcomes as part of a comprehensive knee OA treatment plan before arthroplasty.
Contracture , Osteoarthritis, Knee , Humans , Osteoarthritis, Knee/etiology , Braces , Exercise Therapy/adverse effects , Contracture/etiology , Pain/etiology
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.
COVID-19 , Rheumatic Diseases , Humans , COVID-19 Vaccines , Social Class , Vaccination
BACKGROUND: Social isolation and loneliness affect one in four older adults in many regions around the world. Social isolation and loneliness are shown to be associated with declines in physical and mental health. Intersecting social determinants of health influence both the risk of being socially isolated and lonely as well as the access and uptake of interventions. Our objective is to evaluate what evidence is available within systematic reviews on how to mitigate inequities in access to and effectiveness of interventions. METHODS: We performed an overview of reviews following methods of the Cochrane Handbook for Overviews of Reviews. We selected systematic reviews of effectiveness of interventions aimed at mitigating social isolation and loneliness in older adults (aged 60 or above) published in the last 10 years. In addition, we assessed all primary studies from the most recent systematic review with a broad intervention focus. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Scopus in collaboration with a librarian scientist. We used a structured framework called PROGRESS-Plus to assess the reporting and consideration of equity. PROGRESS-Plus stands for place of residence, race/ethnicity/culture/language, occupation, gender or sex, religion, education, socioeconomic status (SES), social capital, while "plus" stands for additional factors associated with discrimination and exclusion such as age, disability, and sexual orientation. We assessed whether PROGRESS-Plus factors were reported in description of the population, examination of differential effects, or discussion of applicability or limitations. RESULTS: We identified and assessed 17 eligible systematic reviews. We assessed all 23 primary studies from the most recent systematic review with a broad intervention focus. All systematic reviews and primary studies described the population by one or more PROGRESS-Plus factor, most commonly across place of residence and age, respectively. None of the reviews and five primary studies examined differential effects across one or more PROGRESS-Plus dimension. Nine reviews and four primary studies discussed applicability or limitations of their findings by at least one PROGRESS-Plus factor. CONCLUSIONS: Although we know that social isolation and loneliness are worse for the poorest and most socially disadvantaged older adults, the existing evidence base lacks details on how to tailor interventions for these socially disadvantaged older people.
Loneliness , Social Capital , Aged , Female , Humans , Male , Poverty , Social Isolation , Systematic Reviews as Topic
OBJECTIVE: To explore and map the findings of prior research priority-setting initiatives related to improving the health and well-being of older adults. DESIGN: Scoping review. DATA SOURCES: Searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, AgeLine, CINAHL and PsycINFO databases from January 2014 to 26 April 2021, and the James Lind Alliance top 10 priorities. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included primary studies reporting research priorities gathered from stakeholders that focused on ageing or the health of older adults (≥60 years). There were no restrictions by setting, but language was limited to English and French. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We used a modified Reporting Guideline for Priority Setting of Health Research (REPRISE) guideline to assess the transparency of the reported methods. Population-intervention-control-outcome (PICO) priorities were categorised according to their associated International Classification of Health Interventions (ICHI) and International Classification of Functioning (ICF) outcomes. Broad research topics were categorised thematically. RESULTS: Sixty-four studies met our inclusion criteria. The studies gathered opinions from various stakeholder groups, including clinicians (n=56 studies) and older adults (n=35), and caregivers (n=24), with 75% of the initiatives involving multiple groups. None of the included priority-setting initiatives reported gathering opinions from stakeholders located in low-income or middle-income countries. Of the priorities extracted, 272 were identified as broad research topics, while 217 were identified as PICO priorities. PICO priorities that involved clinical outcomes (n=165 priorities) and interventions concerning health-related behaviours (n=59) were identified most often. Broad research topics on health services and systems were identified most often (n=60). Across all these included studies, the reporting of six REPRISE elements was deemed to be critically low. CONCLUSION: Future priority setting initiatives should focus on documenting a more detailed methodology with all initiatives eliciting opinions from caregivers and older adults to ensure priorities reflect the opinions of all key stakeholder groups.
Biomedical Research , Caregivers , Aged , Aging , Biomedical Research/methods , Humans , Language , Middle Aged
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.
Health Equity , Humans , Socioeconomic Factors , Social Class , Occupations
INTRODUCTION: Health inequities are defined as unfair and avoidable differences in health between groups within a population. Most health research is conducted through observational studies, which are able to offer real-world insights about etiology, healthcare policy/programme effectiveness and the impacts of socioeconomic factors. However, most published reports of observational studies do not address how their findings relate to health equity. Our team seeks to develop equity-relevant reporting guidance as an extension of the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement. This scoping review will inform the development of candidate items for the STROBE-Equity extension. We will operationalise equity-seeking populations using the PROGRESS-Plus framework of sociodemographic factors. As part of a parallel stream of the STROBE-Equity project, the relevance of candidate guideline items to Indigenous research will be led by Indigenous coinvestigators on the team. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute method for conducting scoping reviews. We will evaluate the extent to which the identified guidance supports or refutes our preliminary candidate items for reporting equity in observational studies. These candidate items were developed based on items from equity-reporting guidelines for randomised trials and systematic reviews, developed by members of this team. We will consult with our knowledge users, patients/public partners and Indigenous research steering committee to invite suggestions for relevant guidance documents and interpretation of findings. If the identified guidance suggests the need for additional candidate items, they will be developed through inductive thematic analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: We will follow a principled approach that promotes ethical codevelopment with our community partners, based on principles of cultural safety, authentic partnerships, addressing colonial structures in knowledge production and the shared ownership, interpretation, and dissemination of research. All products of this research will be published as open access.
Health Equity , Humans , Population Groups , Research Design , Research Report , Review Literature as Topic , Socioeconomic Factors
It has been shown that there is disparity in access to long-term care and other services for minority populations. This study assessed long-term care access among older individuals belonging to minority populations including visible, ethnocultural, linguistic, and sexual minorities. Barriers and facilitators influencing admission were identified and evaluated.A search for articles from 10 databases published between January 2000 and January 2021 was conducted. Included studies evaluated factors affecting minority populations' admission to long-term care, and non-residents' perceptions of future admission. This review was registered with PROSPERO: CRD42018038662. Sixty included quantitative and qualitative studies, ranging in quality from fair to excellent. Findings suggest minority status is associated with reduced admission to long-term care, controlling for confounding variables. Barriers identified include discordant language, fear of discrimination, lack of information, and family obligations. Findings suggest that minority populations experienced barriers accessing long-term care and had unmet cultural and language needs while receiving care in this setting.
Long-Term Care , Humans , Qualitative Research
BACKGROUND: Enhancing health equity is endorsed in the Sustainable Development Goals. The failure of systematic reviews to consider potential differences in effects across equity factors is cited by decision-makers as a limitation to their ability to inform policy and program decisions. OBJECTIVES: To explore what methods systematic reviewers use to consider health equity in systematic reviews of effectiveness. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to 26 February 2021: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Methodology Register, CINAHL, Education Resources Information Center, Education Abstracts, Criminal Justice Abstracts, Hein Index to Foreign Legal Periodicals, PAIS International, Social Services Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, Digital Dissertations and the Health Technology Assessment Database. We searched SCOPUS to identify articles that cited any of the included studies on 10 June 10 2021. We contacted authors and searched the reference lists of included studies to identify additional potentially relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included empirical studies of cohorts of systematic reviews that assessed methods for measuring effects on health inequalities. We define health inequalities as unfair and avoidable differences across socially stratifying factors that limit opportunities for health. We operationalised this by assessing studies which evaluated differences in health across any component of the PROGRESS-Plus acronym, which stands for Place of residence, Race/ethnicity/culture/language, Occupation, Gender or sex, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status, Social capital. "Plus" stands for other factors associated with discrimination, exclusion, marginalisation or vulnerability such as personal characteristics (e.g. age, disability), relationships that limit opportunities for health (e.g. children in a household with parents who smoke) or environmental situations which provide limited control of opportunities for health (e.g. school food environment). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data using a pre-tested form. Risk of bias was appraised for included studies according to the potential for bias in selection and detection of systematic reviews. MAIN RESULTS: In total, 48,814 studies were identified and the titles and abstracts were screened in duplicate. In this updated review, we identified an additional 124 methodological studies published in the 10 years since the first version of this review, which included 34 studies. Thus, 158 methodological studies met our criteria for inclusion. The methods used by these studies focused on evidence relevant to populations experiencing health inequity (108 out of 158 studies), assess subgroup analysis across PROGRESS-Plus (26 out of 158 studies), assess analysis of a gradient in effect across PROGRESS-Plus (2 out of 158 studies) or use a combination of subgroup analysis and focused approaches (20 out of 158 studies). The most common PROGRESS-Plus factors assessed were age (43 studies), socioeconomic status in 35 studies, low- and middle-income countries in 24 studies, gender or sex in 22 studies, race or ethnicity in 17 studies, and four studies assessed multiple factors across which health inequity may exist. Only 16 studies provided a definition of health inequity. Five methodological approaches to consider health equity in systematic reviews of effectiveness were identified: 1) descriptive assessment of reporting and analysis in systematic reviews (140 of 158 studies used a type of descriptive method); 2) descriptive assessment of reporting and analysis in original trials (50 studies); 3) analytic approaches which assessed differential effects across one or more PROGRESS-Plus factors (16 studies); 4) applicability assessment (25 studies) and 5) stakeholder engagement (28 studies), which is a new finding in this update and examines the appraisal of whether relevant stakeholders with lived experience of health inequity were included in the design of systematic reviews or design and delivery of interventions. Reporting for both approaches (analytic and applicability) lacked transparency and was insufficiently detailed to enable the assessment of credibility. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for improvement in conceptual clarity about the definition of health equity, describing sufficient detail about analytic approaches (including subgroup analyses) and transparent reporting of judgments required for applicability assessments in order to consider health equity in systematic reviews of effectiveness.
Health Equity , Child , Humans , Parents , Research Design , Systematic Reviews as Topic
