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.

Investing in school systems: conceptualising returns on investment across the health, education and social protection sectors.

Public policies often aim to improve welfare, economic injustice and reduce inequality, particularly in the social protection, labour, health and education sectors. While these policies frequently operate in silos, the education sphere can operate as a cross-sectoral link. Schools represent a unique locus, with globally hundreds of millions of children attending class every day. A high-profile policy example is school feeding, with over 400 million students worldwide receiving meals in schools. The benefits of harmonising interventions across sectors with a common delivery platform include economies of scale. Moreover, economic evaluation frameworks commonly used to assess policies rarely account for impact across sectors besides their primary intent. For example, school meals are often evaluated for their impact on nutrition, but they also have educational benefits, including increasing attendance and learning and incorporating smallholder farmers into corporate value chains. To address these gaps, we propose the introduction of a comprehensive value-for-money framework for investments toward school systems that acknowledges the return to a common delivery platform-schools-and the multisectoral returns (eg, education, health and nutrition, labour, social protection) emerging from the rollout of school-based programmes. Directly building on benefit-cost analysis methods, this framework could help identify interventions that yield the highest gains in human capital per budget expenditure, with direct implications for finance ministries. Given the detrimental impact of COVID-19 on schoolchildren and human capital, it is urgent to build back stronger and more sustainable welfare systems.

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.

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.

Associations between dimensions of empowerment and nutritional status among married adolescent girls in East Africa: a structural equation modelling study.

BACKGROUND: Empowering adolescent girls is an important component of combating malnutrition in this age group. Because empowerment is multidimensional and context specific, it can be difficult for policymakers and practitioners to target the dimensions of empowerment associated with adolescent girls' nutrition in a particular setting. This study sought to identify the empowerment dimensions significantly associated with married adolescent girls' nutritional status in East Africa; a region where malnutrition and gender inequality stubbornly persist. METHODS: We used cross-sectional Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) data from Ethiopia (2016), Kenya (2014), Tanzania (2015-16) and Uganda (2016) to construct and test theoretically informed structural equation models of the relationship between six dimensions of empowerment and BMI-for-age and haemoglobin levels for married adolescent girls aged 15-19 years. RESULTS: Our models were found to be a good fit for the data. Married adolescent girls' access to information, measured by their education level and mass media use, was directly and positively associated with their BMI-for-age (p < 0.05). Asset ownership, measured by owning a house or land alone or jointly, was directly and positively associated with haemoglobin (p < 0.05) and reduced odds of being moderately to severely anemic. Rejecting justifications for intimate partner violence, a measure of respondents' intrinsic agency, was directly and positively associated with the odds of being overweight or obese. Adolescent girls' level of empowerment across all dimensions had a direct relationship with their country of residence and household wealth. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that investment in girls' access to information through education and mass/social media and their economic empowerment may be important contributors to their overall empowerment and nutritional status. However, caution is needed as greater autonomy may contribute to increased consumption of unhealthy foods that can contribute to overweight and obesity. Strategies to empower married adolescent girls should be tailored to their specific circumstances. There is an urgent need for better data on adolescent empowerment and health, including increased research into age-, sex- and gender-appropriate empowerment measures and longitudinal data to assess causality. The use of statistical models should be complemented by robust qualitative research to further results interpretation.

Food insecurity among African Americans in the United States: A scoping review.

In 2019, the estimated prevalence of food insecurity for Black non-Hispanic households was higher than the national average due to health disparities exacerbated by forms of racial discrimination. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Black households have experienced higher rates of food insecurity when compared to other populations in the United States. The primary objectives of this review were to identify which risk factors have been investigated for an association with food insecurity, describe how food insecurity is measured across studies that have evaluated this outcome among African Americans, and determine which dimensions of food security (food accessibility, availability, and utilization) are captured by risk factors studied by authors. Food insecurity related studies were identified through a search of Google Scholar, PubMed, CINAHL Plus, MEDLINE®, PsycINFO, Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition, and Web of Science™ (Clarivate), on May 20, 2021. Eligible studies were primary research studies, with a concurrent comparison group, published in English between 1995 and 2021. Ninety-eight relevant studies were included for data charting with 37 unique measurement tools, 115 risk factors, and 93 possible consequences of food insecurity identified. Few studies examined factors linked to racial discrimination, behaviour, or risk factors that mapped to the food availability dimension of food security. Infrequently studied factors, such as lifetime racial discrimination, socioeconomic status (SES), and income insecurity need further investigation while frequently studied factors such as age, education, race/ethnicity, and gender need to be summarized using a systematic review approach so that risk factor impact can be better assessed. Risk factors linked to racial discrimination and food insecurity need to be better understood in order to minimize health disparities among African American adults during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.

More food for thought: a follow-up qualitative study on experiences of food bank access and food insecurity in Ottawa, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Despite the widespread proliferation of food banks in high-income countries over the past several decades, there is a paucity of data regarding the long-term experiences of the people who rely on food banks. We were unable to find any other studies with follow-up interviews later than 6 months after baseline. OBJECTIVE: This study examined the changes in the lived experiences of people who accessed food banks over a period of 18 months. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 people who accessed food banks in Ottawa, Canada and who had participated in a 6-month study that ended one full year before this follow-up study was done. Transcripts of the interviews were analyzed through a general inductive approach involving repeated readings and coding of relevant segments of text with NVivo software according to themes that emerged iteratively. Code reports were then used to discuss and reach consensus on a final set of themes. RESULTS: Three main themes emerged: (1) chronic physical and mental health issues intersecting with food bank access; (2) psychosocial impact of relying on food banks; and (3) living on a low income and dealing with poverty. Chronic physical and mental health conditions were prevalent among the participants. As well, 10 of the 11 participants in this 18-month follow-up continued to rely on food banks as a regular resource - not as an emergency relief measure - to supplement their nutritional needs. While most of the participants reported that food banks helped them in some way, many shortcomings were also noted regarding food amounts, quality and choice. Overall, there was little change reported since the 6-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The shortcomings reported by participants can mostly be attributed to the dependence of food banks on charitable donations; thus, despite the commendable work of food bank staff and volunteers, participants described the food assistance as inadequate. Additionally, long-term food bank usage was a common denominator in the lived experiences of all our participants; therefore, our findings reinforce the need for assistance programs that target long-term food insecurity and its underlying causes, to replace or supplement charity-based food bank programs.

How effects on health equity are assessed in systematic reviews of interventions.

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.

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

This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows: to appraise and synthesize the available quantitative evidence on GBI interventions in high-income countries, for the purpose of comparing the relative effectiveness of specific forms of GBI for alleviating poverty.

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

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

The impact of novel and traditional food bank approaches on food insecurity: a longitudinal study in Ottawa, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Food insecurity is strongly associated with poor mental and physical health, especially with chronic diseases. Food banks have become the primary long-term solution to addressing food insecurity. Traditionally, food banks provide assistance in the form of pre-packed hampers based on the food supplies on hand, such that the food items often do not meet the recipients' cultural, religious or medical requirements. Recently, new approaches have been implemented by food banks, including choice models of food selection, additional onsite programming, and integrating food banks within Community Resource Centres. METHODS: This study examined changes in food security and physical and mental health, at four time points over 18 months at eleven food banks in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. The participants - people who accessed these food banks - were surveyed using the Household Food Security Survey Module (HFSSM) and the Short-Form Health Survey Version 2 (SF-12). Statistical analyses included: pairwise paired t-tests between the mean perceived physical and mental health scores across the four waves of data collection, and longitudinal mixed effects regression models to understand how food security changed over time. RESULTS: The majority of people who were food insecure at baseline remained food insecure at the 18-month follow-up, although there was a small downward trend in the proportion of people in the severely food insecure category. Conversely, there was a small but significant increase in the mean perceived mental health score at the 18-month follow-up compared to baseline. We found significant reductions in food insecurity for people who accessed food banks that offered a Choice model of food distribution and food banks that were integrated within Community Resource Centres. CONCLUSIONS: Food banks offer some relief of food insecurity but they don't eliminate the problem. In this study, reductions in food insecurity were associated with food banks that offered a Choice model and those that were integrated within a Community Resource Centre. There was a slight improvement in perceived mental health at the 18-month time point; however, moderately and severely food insecure participants still had much lower perceived mental health than the general population.

PROTOCOL: The effects of empowerment-based nutrition interventions on the nutritional status of women of reproductive age in low- and middle-income countries.

The systematic review will answer the follow research questions: (1) What is the effectiveness of different empowerment approaches employed within nutrition interventions on the nutritional status of women of reproductive age in low- and middle-income countries? (2) What implementation and contextual factors contribute to or detract from the effectiveness of these interventions?

Health, social care and technological interventions to improve functional ability of older adults living at home: An evidence and gap map.

Background: By 2030, the global population of people older than 60 years is expected to be higher than the number of children under 10 years, resulting in major health and social care system implications worldwide. Without a supportive environment, whether social or built, diminished functional ability may arise in older people. Functional ability comprises an individual's intrinsic capacity and people's interaction with their environment enabling them to be and do what they value. Objectives: This evidence and gap map aims to identify primary studies and systematic reviews of health and social support services as well as assistive devices designed to support functional ability among older adults living at home or in other places of residence. Search Methods: We systematically searched from inception to August 2018 in: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PsycINFO, AgeLine, Campbell Library, ASSIA, Social Science Citation Index and Social Policy & Practice. We conducted a focused search for grey literature and protocols of studies (e.g., ProQuest Theses and Dissertation Global, conference abstract databases, Help Age, PROSPERO, Cochrane and Campbell libraries and ClinicalTrials.gov). Selection Criteria: Screening and data extraction were performed independently in duplicate according to our intervention and outcome framework. We included completed and on-going systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials of effectiveness on health and social support services provided at home, assistive products and technology for personal indoor and outdoor mobility and transportation as well as design, construction and building products and technology of buildings for private use such as wheelchairs, and ramps. Data Collection and Analysis: We coded interventions and outcomes, and the number of studies that assessed health inequities across equity factors. We mapped outcomes based on the International Classification of Function, Disability and Health (ICF) adapted categories: intrinsic capacities (body function and structures) and functional abilities (activities). We assessed methodological quality of systematic reviews using the AMSTAR II checklist. Main Results: After de-duplication, 10,783 records were screened. The map includes 548 studies (120 systematic reviews and 428 randomized controlled trials). Interventions and outcomes were classified using domains from the International Classification of Function, Disability and Health (ICF) framework. Most systematic reviews (n = 71, 59%) were rated low or critically low for methodological quality.The most common interventions were home-based rehabilitation for older adults (n = 276) and home-based health services for disease prevention (n = 233), mostly delivered by visiting healthcare professionals (n = 474). There was a relative paucity of studies on personal mobility, building adaptations, family support, personal support and befriending or friendly visits. The most measured intrinsic capacity domains were mental function (n = 269) and neuromusculoskeletal function (n = 164). The most measured outcomes for functional ability were basic needs (n = 277) and mobility (n = 160). There were few studies which evaluated outcome domains of social participation, financial security, ability to maintain relationships and communication.There was a lack of studies in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and a gap in the assessment of health equity issues. Authors' Conclusions: There is substantial evidence for interventions to promote functional ability in older adults at home including mostly home-based rehabilitation for older adults and home-based health services for disease prevention. Remotely delivered home-based services are of greater importance to policy-makers and practitioners in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. This map of studies published prior to the pandemic provides an initial resource to identify relevant home-based services which may be of interest for policy-makers and practitioners, such as home-based rehabilitation and social support, although these interventions would likely require further adaptation for online delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic. There is a need to strengthen assessment of social support and mobility interventions and outcomes related to making decisions, building relationships, financial security, and communication in future studies. More studies are needed to assess LMIC contexts and health equity issues.

Community-level interventions for improving access to food in low- and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: After decades of decline since 2005, the global prevalence of undernourishment reverted and since 2015 has increased to levels seen in 2010 to 2011. The prevalence is highest in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), especially Africa and Asia. Food insecurity and associated undernutrition detrimentally affect health and socioeconomic development in the short and long term, for individuals, including children, and societies. Physical and economic access to food is crucial to ensure food security. Community-level interventions could be important to increase access to food in LMICs. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of community-level interventions that aim to improve access to nutritious food in LMICs, for both the whole community and for disadvantaged or at-risk individuals or groups within a community, such as infants, children and women; elderly, poor or unemployed people; or minority groups. SEARCH METHODS: We searched for relevant studies in 16 electronic databases, including trial registries, from 1980 to September 2019, and updated the searches in six key databases in February 2020. We applied no language or publication status limits. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster randomised controlled trials (cRCTs) and prospective controlled studies (PCS). All population groups, adults and children, living in communities in LMICs exposed to community-level interventions aiming to improve food access were eligible for inclusion. We excluded studies that only included participants with specific diseases or conditions (e.g. severely malnourished children). Eligible interventions were broadly categorised into those that improved buying power (e.g. create income-generation opportunities, cash transfer schemes); addressed food prices (e.g. vouchers and subsidies); addressed infrastructure and transport that affected physical access to food outlets; addressed the social environment and provided social support (e.g. social support from family, neighbours or government). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts, and full texts of potentially eligible records, against the inclusion criteria. Disagreements were resolved through discussion or arbitration by a third author, if necessary. For each included study, two authors independently extracted data and a third author arbitrated disagreements. However, the outcome data were extracted by one author and checked by a biostatistician. We assessed risk of bias for all studies using the Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) risk of bias tool for studies with a separate control group. We conducted meta-analyses if there was a minimum of two studies for interventions within the same category, reporting the same outcome measure and these were sufficiently homogeneous. Where we were able to meta-analyse, we used the random-effects model to incorporate any existing heterogeneity. Where we were unable to conduct meta-analyses, we synthesised using vote counting based on effect direction. MAIN RESULTS: We included 59 studies, including 214 to 169,485 participants, and 300 to 124, 644 households, mostly from Africa and Latin America, addressing the following six intervention types (three studies assessed two different types of interventions). Interventions that improved buying power: Unconditional cash transfers (UCTs) (16 cRCTs, two RCTs, three PCSs): we found high-certainty evidence that UCTs improve food security and make little or no difference to cognitive function and development and low-certainty evidence that UCTs may increase dietary diversity and may reduce stunting. The evidence was very uncertain about the effects of UCTs on the proportion of household expenditure on food, and on wasting. Regarding adverse outcomes, evidence from one trial indicates that UCTs reduce the proportion of infants who are overweight. Conditional cash transfers (CCTs) (nine cRCTs, five PCSs): we found high-certainty evidence that CCTs result in little to no difference in the proportion of household expenditure on food and that they slightly improve cognitive function in children; moderate-certainty evidence that CCTs probably slightly improve dietary diversity and low-certainty evidence that they may make little to no difference to stunting or wasting. Evidence on adverse outcomes (two PCSs) shows that CCTs make no difference to the proportion of overweight children. Income generation interventions (six cRCTs, 11 PCSs): we found moderate-certainty evidence that income generation interventions probably make little or no difference to stunting or wasting; and low-certainty evidence that they may result in little to no difference to food security or that they may improve dietary diversity in children, but not for households. Interventions that addressed food prices: Food vouchers (three cRCTs, one RCT): we found moderate-certainty evidence that food vouchers probably reduce stunting; and low-certainty evidence that that they may improve dietary diversity slightly, and may result in little to no difference in wasting. Food and nutrition subsidies (one cRCT, three PCSs): we found low-certainty evidence that food and nutrition subsidies may improve dietary diversity among school children. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects on household expenditure on healthy foods as a proportion of total expenditure on food (very low-certainty evidence). Interventions that addressed the social environment: Social support interventions (one cRCT, one PCS): we found moderate-certainty evidence that community grants probably make little or no difference to wasting; low-certainty evidence that they may make little or no difference to stunting. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of village savings and loans on food security and dietary diversity. None of the included studies addressed the intervention category of infrastructure changes. In addition, none of the studies reported on one of the primary outcomes of this review, namely prevalence of undernourishment. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The body of evidence indicates that UCTs can improve food security. Income generation interventions do not seem to make a difference for food security, but the evidence is unclear for the other interventions. CCTs, UCTs, interventions that help generate income, interventions that help minimise impact of food prices through food vouchers and subsidies can potentially improve dietary diversity. UCTs and food vouchers may have a potential impact on reducing stunting, but CCTs, income generation interventions or social environment interventions do not seem to make a difference on wasting or stunting. CCTs seem to positively impact cognitive function and development, but not UCTs, which may be due to school attendance, healthcare visits and other conditionalities associated with CCTs.

Community-level interventions for improving access to food in low- and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: After decades of decline since 2005, the global prevalence of undernourishment reverted and since 2015 has increased to levels seen in 2010 to 2011. The prevalence is highest in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), especially Africa and Asia. Food insecurity and associated undernutrition detrimentally affect health and socioeconomic development in the short and long term, for individuals, including children, and societies. Physical and economic access to food is crucial to ensure food security. Community-level interventions could be important to increase access to food in LMICs. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of community-level interventions that aim to improve access to nutritious food in LMICs, for both the whole community and for disadvantaged or at-risk individuals or groups within a community, such as infants, children and women; elderly, poor or unemployed people; or minority groups. SEARCH METHODS: We searched for relevant studies in 16 electronic databases, including trial registries, from 1980 to September 2019, and updated the searches in six key databases in February 2020. We applied no language or publication status limits. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster randomised controlled trials (cRCTs) and prospective controlled studies (PCS). All population groups, adults and children, living in communities in LMICs exposed to community-level interventions aiming to improve food access were eligible for inclusion. We excluded studies that only included participants with specific diseases or conditions (e.g. severely malnourished children). Eligible interventions were broadly categorised into those that improved buying power (e.g. create income-generation opportunities, cash transfer schemes); addressed food prices (e.g. vouchers and subsidies); addressed infrastructure and transport that affected physical access to food outlets; addressed the social environment and provided social support (e.g. social support from family, neighbours or government). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts, and full texts of potentially eligible records, against the inclusion criteria. Disagreements were resolved through discussion or arbitration by a third author, if necessary. For each included study, two authors independently extracted data and a third author arbitrated disagreements. However, the outcome data were extracted by one author and checked by a biostatistician. We assessed risk of bias for all studies using the Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) risk of bias tool for studies with a separate control group. We conducted meta-analyses if there was a minimum of two studies for interventions within the same category, reporting the same outcome measure and these were sufficiently homogeneous. Where we were able to meta-analyse, we used the random-effects model to incorporate any existing heterogeneity. Where we were unable to conduct meta-analyses, we synthesised using vote counting based on effect direction. MAIN RESULTS: We included 59 studies, including 214 to 169,485 participants, and 300 to 124, 644 households, mostly from Africa and Latin America, addressing the following six intervention types (three studies assessed two different types of interventions). Interventions that improved buying power: Unconditional cash transfers (UCTs) (16 cRCTs, two RCTs, three PCSs): we found high-certainty evidence that UCTs improve food security and make little or no difference to cognitive function and development and low-certainty evidence that UCTs may increase dietary diversity and may reduce stunting. The evidence was very uncertain about the effects of UCTs on the proportion of household expenditure on food, and on wasting. Regarding adverse outcomes, evidence from one trial indicates that UCTs reduce the proportion of infants who are overweight. Conditional cash transfers (CCTs) (nine cRCTs, five PCSs): we found high-certainty evidence that CCTs result in little to no difference in the proportion of household expenditure on food and that they slightly improve cognitive function in children; moderate-certainty evidence that CCTs probably slightly improve dietary diversity and low-certainty evidence that they may make little to no difference to stunting or wasting. Evidence on adverse outcomes (two PCSs) shows that CCTs make no difference to the proportion of overweight children. Income generation interventions (six cRCTs, 11 PCSs): we found moderate-certainty evidence that income generation interventions probably make little or no difference to stunting or wasting; and low-certainty evidence that they may result in little to no difference to food security or that they may improve dietary diversity in children, but not for households. Interventions that addressed food prices: Food vouchers (three cRCTs, one RCT): we found moderate-certainty evidence that food vouchers probably reduce stunting; and low-certainty evidence that that they may improve dietary diversity slightly, and may result in little to no difference in wasting. Food and nutrition subsidies (one cRCT, three PCSs): we found low-certainty evidence that food and nutrition subsidies may improve dietary diversity among school children. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects on household expenditure on healthy foods as a proportion of total expenditure on food (very low-certainty evidence). Interventions that addressed the social environment: Social support interventions (one cRCT, one PCS): we found moderate-certainty evidence that community grants probably make little or no difference to wasting; low-certainty evidence that they may make little or no difference to stunting. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of village savings and loans on food security and dietary diversity. None of the included studies addressed the intervention category of infrastructure changes. In addition, none of the studies reported on one of the primary outcomes of this review, namely prevalence of undernourishment. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The body of evidence indicates that UCTs can improve food security. Income generation interventions do not seem to make a difference for food security, but the evidence is unclear for the other interventions. CCTs, UCTs, interventions that help generate income, interventions that help minimise impact of food prices through food vouchers and subsidies can potentially improve dietary diversity. UCTs and food vouchers may have a potential impact on reducing stunting, but CCTs, income generation interventions or social environment interventions do not seem to make a difference on wasting or stunting. CCTs seem to positively impact cognitive function and development, but not UCTs, which may be due to school attendance, healthcare visits and other conditionalities associated with CCTs.

Reporting of health equity considerations in cluster and individually randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: The randomized controlled trial (RCT) is considered the gold standard study design to inform decisions about the effectiveness of interventions. However, a common limitation is inadequate reporting of the applicability of the intervention and trial results for people who are "socially disadvantaged" and this can affect policy-makers' decisions. We previously developed a framework for identifying health-equity-relevant trials, along with a reporting guideline for transparent reporting. In this study, we provide a descriptive assessment of health-equity considerations in 200 randomly sampled equity-relevant trials. METHODS: We developed a search strategy to identify health-equity-relevant trials published between 2013 and 2015. We randomly sorted the 4316 records identified by the search and screened studies until 100 individually randomized (RCTs) and 100 cluster randomized controlled trials (CRTs) were identified. We developed and pilot-tested a data extraction form based on our initial work, to inform the development of our reporting guideline for equity-relevant randomized trials. RESULTS: In total, 39 trials (20%) were conducted in a low- and middle-income country and 157 trials (79%) in a high-income country focused on socially disadvantaged populations (78% CRTs, 79% RCTs). Seventy-four trials (37%) reported a subgroup analysis across a population characteristic associated with disadvantage (25% CRT, 49% RCTs), with 19% of included studies reporting subgroup analyses across sex, 9% across race/ethnicity/culture, and 4% across socioeconomic status. No subgroup analyses were reported for place of residence, occupation, religion, education, or social capital. One hundred and forty-one trials (71%) discussed the applicability of their results to one or more socially disadvantaged populations (68% of CRT, 73% of RCT). DISCUSSION: In this set of trials, selected for their relevance to health equity, data that were disaggregated for socially disadvantaged populations were rarely reported. We found that even when the data are available, opportunities to analyze health-equity considerations are frequently missed. The recently published equity extension of the Consolidated Reporting Standards for Randomized Trials (CONSORT-Equity) may help improve delineation of hypotheses related to socially disadvantaged populations, and transparency and completeness of reporting of health-equity considerations in RCTs. This study can serve as a baseline assessment of the reporting of equity considerations.

Influence of low income on return to participation following stroke.

Purpose: Low income is known to influence participation post stroke, but the process by which this occurs is poorly understood.Methods: A qualitative multiple case study approach, focusing on the experience of returning to participation in personal projects among eight low-income francophone stroke survivors living in eastern Ontario (Canada). Data included semi-structured interviews with the stroke survivors and with their care partners, participant observations, assessment measures, and chart reviews.Results: Healthcare professionals inconsistently gave the stroke survivors needed information and assistance to access entitlements during discharge planning. Income support programs were difficult to access and once obtained, were not completely adequate to support essential necessities (food, medication) in addition to other goods and services related to valued activities. Housing was an important monthly expense that limited available monies for personal projects. Only in instances where participants were assisted with housing by informal networks were there adequate funds to pursue personal projects.Conclusion: This case study demonstrated that even in a universal healthcare system, post-stroke participation for those with low incomes was severely restricted. Changes at the clinical level and at the public policy level could facilitate participation.Implications for rehabilitationIncome influenced the experience of return to participation for the low-income stroke survivors by limiting their ability to afford housing, goods, and services.The macro environment, which regulates the healthcare and social service systems, was the strongest influence on return to participation for low income stroke survivors.Findings point to actions at the clinical and policy levels to help address this inequity.