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.

The impacts of the Nutrition North Canada program on the accessibility and affordability of perishable, nutritious foods among eligible communities: a scoping review.

The Nutrition North Canada (NNC) program, introduced in April 2011 is a federal strategy to improve access to perishable, nutritious foods for remote and isolated communities in northern Canada by subsidising retailers to provide price reductions at the point of purchase. As of March 2023, 123 communities are eligible for the program. To evaluate existing evidence and research on the NNC program to inform policy decisions to improve the effectiveness of NNC. A scoping review of peer-reviewed articles was conducted in ten databases along with a supplemental grey literature search of government and non-government reports published between 2011 and 2022. The search yielded 172 publications for screening, of which 42 were included in the analysis. Narrative thematic evidence synthesis yielded 104 critiques and 341 recommendations of the NNC program across eight themes. The most-identified recommendations focus on transparency, communication, and support for harvesting, hunting, and community food initiatives. This review highlights recommendations informed by the literature to address critiques of the NNC program to improve food security, increase access to perishable and non-perishable items, and support community-based food initiatives among eligible communities. The review also identifies priority areas for future policy directions such as additional support for education initiatives, communication and transparency amidst program changes, and food price regulations.

Public policy interventions to mitigate household food insecurity in Canada: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review is to synthesise the evidence on public policy interventions and their ability to reduce household food insecurity (HFI) in Canada. DESIGN: Four databases were searched up to October 2023. Only studies that reported on public policy interventions that might reduce HFI were included, regardless of whether that was the primary purpose of the study. Title and abstract screening, full-text screening, data extraction, risk of bias and certainty of the evidence assessments were conducted by two reviewers. RESULTS: Seventeen relevant studies covering three intervention categories were included: income supplementation, housing assistance programmes and food retailer subsidies. Income supplementation had a positive effect on reducing HFI with a moderate to high level of certainty. Housing assistance programmes and food retailer studies may have little to no effect on HFI; however, there is low certainty in the evidence that could change as evidence emerges. CONCLUSION: The evidence suggests that income supplementation likely reduces HFI for low-income Canadians. Many questions remain in terms of how to optimise this intervention and additional high-quality studies are still needed.

What is known about the prevalence of household food insecurity in Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review. / État des connaissances au sujet de la prévalence de l'insécurité alimentaire des ménages canadiens durant la pandémie de COVID-19 : revue systématique.

INTRODUCTION: Household food insecurity (HFI) is a persistent public health issue in Canada that may have disproportionately affected certain subgroups of the population during the COVID-19 pandemic. The purpose of this systematic review is to report on the prevalence of HFI in the Canadian general population and in subpopulations after the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020. METHODS: Sixteen databases were searched from 1 March 2020 to 5 May 2021. Abstract and full-text screening was conducted by one reviewer and the inclusions verified by a second reviewer. Only studies that reported on the prevalence of HFI in Canadian households were included. Data extraction, risk of bias and certainty of the evidence assessments were conducted by two reviewers. RESULTS: Of 8986 studies identified in the search, four studies, three of which collected data in April and May 2020, were included. The evidence concerning the prevalence of HFI during the COVID-19 pandemic is very uncertain. The prevalence of HFI (marginal to severe) ranged from 14% to 17% in the general population. Working-age populations aged 18 to 44 years had higher HFI (range: 18%-23%) than adults aged 60+ years (5%-11%). Some of the highest HFI prevalence was observed among households with children (range: 19%-22%), those who had lost their jobs or stopped working due to COVID-19 (24%-39%) and those with job insecurity (26%). CONCLUSION: The evidence suggests that the COVID-19 pandemic may have slightly increased total household food insecurity in Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in populations that were already vulnerable to HFI. There is a need to continue to monitor HFI in Canada.

Self-perceived health status among adults with obesity in Quebec: a cluster analysis.

PURPOSE: People with obesity are a highly heterogeneous group. Characterizing this heterogeneity may help to improve public health by offering adapted interventions and treatments to more homogeneous sub-groups among obese patients. This research aims to (1) identify distinct clusters of people with obesity based on demographic, behavioural, and clinical factors in the province of Quebec (Canada) and (2) assess the association of these clusters with selfperceived health. METHODS: We conducted a sex specific cluster analysis (multiple correspondence analysis and hierarchical clustering) of adults with body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 kg/m2 from the 2015-2016 Canadian Community Health Survey in Quebec. Clusters were based on demographic, clinical, and behavioural characteristics. The clusters were tested for association with poor selfperceived health using logistic regression. RESULTS: Three clusters of individuals with obesity were identified. These were (1) young individuals, (2) people with higher levels of depression and anxiety, and (3) older adults with high comorbidity. Those with high levels of depression and anxiety (9% of men vs. 13% of women) were associated with the poorest selfperceived health. CONCLUSIONS: People with obesity in Quebec can be categorized into three clusters based on demographic, clinical, and behavioural characteristics. The findings of this study draw attention to the need to examine the coexistence of obesity with depression and anxiety, particularly as it relates to selfperceived health.

Validated methods for identifying individuals with obesity in health care administrative databases: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Health care administrative databases are increasingly used for health studies and public health surveillance. Cases of individuals with obesity are selected using case-identification methods. However, the validity of these methods is fragmentary and particularly challenging for obesity case identification. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this systematic review are to (1) determine the case-identification methods used to identify individuals with obesity in health care administrative databases and (2) to summarize the validity of these case-identification methods when compared with a reference standard. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in six bibliographic databases for the period January 1980 to June 2019 for all studies evaluating obesity case-identification methods compared with a reference standard. RESULTS: Seventeen articles met the inclusion criteria. International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes were the only case-identification method utilized in selected articles. The performance of obesity-identification methods varied widely across studies, with positive predictive value ranging from 19% to 100% while sensitivity ranged from 3% to 92%. The sensitivity of these methods was usually low while the specificity was higher. CONCLUSION: When obesity is reported in health care administrative databases, it is usually correctly reported; however, obesity tends to be highly underreported in databases. Therefore, case-identification methods to monitor the prevalence and incidence of obesity within health care administrative databases are not reliable. In contrast, the use of these methods remains relevant for the selection of individuals with obesity for cohort studies, particularly when identifying cohorts of individuals with severe obesity or cohorts where obesity is associated with comorbidities.

Can we decide which outcomes should be measured in every clinical trial? A scoping review of the existing conceptual frameworks and processes to develop core outcome sets.

OBJECTIVE: The usefulness of randomized control trials to advance clinical care depends upon the outcomes reported, but disagreement on the choice of outcome measures has resulted in inconsistency and the potential for reporting bias. One solution to this problem is the development of a core outcome set: a minimum set of outcome measures deemed critical for clinical decision making. Within rheumatology the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) initiative has pioneered the development of core outcome sets since 1992. As the number of diseases addressed by OMERACT has increased and its experience in formulating core sets has grown, clarification and update of the conceptual framework and formulation of a more explicit process of area/domain core set development has become necessary. As part of the update process of the OMERACT Filter criteria to version 2, a literature review was undertaken to compare and contrast the OMERACT conceptual framework with others within and outside rheumatology. METHODS: A scoping search was undertaken to examine the extent, range, and nature of conceptual frameworks for core set outcome selection in health. We searched the following resources: Cochrane Library Methods Group Register; Medline; Embase; PsycInfo; Environmental Studies and Policy Collection; and ABI/INFORM Global. We also conducted a targeted Google search. RESULTS: Five conceptual frameworks were identified: the WHO tripartite definition of health; the 5 Ds (discomfort, disability, drug toxicity, dollar cost, and death); the International Classification of Functioning (ICF); PROMIS (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement System); and the Outcomes Hierarchy. Of these, only the 5 Ds and ICF frameworks have been systematically applied in core set development. Outside the area of rheumatology, several core sets were identified; these had been developed through a limited range of consensus-based methods with varying degrees of methodological rigor. None applied a framework to ensure content validity of the end product. CONCLUSION: This scoping review reinforced the need for clear methods and standards for core set development. Based on these findings, OMERACT will make its own conceptual framework and working process more explicit. Proposals for how to achieve this were discussed at the OMERACT 11 conference.

Toward a generalized framework of core measurement areas in clinical trials: a position paper for OMERACT 11.

OBJECTIVE: The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) international consensus initiative has successfully developed core sets of outcome measures for trials of many rheumatologic conditions, but its expanding scope called for clarification and updating of its underlying conceptual framework and working process. To develop a core set of what we propose to call outcome measurement instruments, consensus must be reached both on what to measure and how to measure. This article deals with the first part: a framework necessary to ensure comprehensiveness of the domains chosen for measurement. We formulated a conceptual framework of core measurement areas in clinical trials, for discussion at the OMERACT 11 conference. METHODS: We formulated a framework and definitions of key concepts adapted from the literature, and followed an iterative consensus process (small group processes and an Internet-based survey) of those involved including patients, health professionals, and methodologists within and outside rheumatology. RESULTS: The draft framework comprises 4 core "areas": death, life impact (all aspects of how a patient feels or functions), resource use (monetary and other costs of the health condition and interventions), and pathophysiologic manifestations (disease-specific clinical and psychological signs, biomarkers, and potential surrogate outcome measures necessary to assess specific effects). The survey responses (262 of 2293, response rate 11%) indicated broad agreement with the draft framework and the proposed definitions of key concepts, including understandability and feasibility. A total of 283 comments were processed. CONCLUSION: In an iterative process, we have developed a generic framework for outcome measurement and working definitions of key concepts ready for discussion at the OMERACT 11 conference.

Competency-based standardized training for humanitarian providers: making humanitarian assistance a professional discipline.

The number of people employed in international humanitarian care is growing at a yearly rate of 6%. The demand for better coordination, accountability, and training has led to a need for standardized humanitarian training programs for providers. Training should be based on comprehensive core competencies that providers must demonstrate in addition to their skill-specific competencies. This report explores the competencies specific to humanitarian training that are practice- and application-oriented, teachable, and measurable. Competency-based, standardized programs will be used to select humanitarian workers deployed in future crises and to guide the professionalization of this discipline.