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.

Motivations for investigating health inequities in observational epidemiology: a content analysis of 320 studies.

OBJECTIVES: To enhance equity in clinical and epidemiological research, it is crucial to understand researcher motivations for conducting equity-relevant studies. Therefore, we evaluated author motivations in a randomly selected sample of equity-relevant observational studies published during the COVID-19 pandemic. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched MEDLINE for studies from 2020 to 2022, resulting in 16,828 references. We randomly selected 320 studies purposefully sampled across income setting (high vs low-middle-income), COVID-19 topic (vs non-COVID-19), and focus on populations experiencing inequities. Of those, 206 explicitly mentioned motivations which we analyzed thematically. We used discourse analysis to investigate the reasons behind emerging motivations. RESULTS: We identified the following motivations: (1) examining health disparities, (2) tackling social determinants to improve access, and (3) addressing knowledge gaps in health equity. Discourse analysis showed motivations stem from commitments to social justice and recognizing the importance of highlighting it in research. Other discourses included aspiring to improve health-care efficiency, wanting to understand cause-effect relationships, and seeking to contribute to an equitable evidence base. CONCLUSION: Understanding researchers' motivations for assessing health equity can aid in developing guidance that tailors to their needs. We will consider these motivations in developing and sharing equity guidance to better meet researchers' needs.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

When is systematic review replication useful, and when is it wasteful?

To the Editor, During the past quarter of a century and following the global explosion in access to scientific literature, systematic reviews have become an excellent way to inform decisions with summaries of the effects of interventions, and to learn about their impact under different conditions or among populations. Systematic reviews play a key role in ensuring that policy decisions are informed by research. Local and national governments as well as international health organizations now regularly commission and request that systematic reviews inform policy decisions. [...]

When is systematic review replication useful, and when is it wasteful?

en

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

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

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

Exploring social innovation in health in Central America and the Caribbean

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

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

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.

Promoción de la investigación de alta calidad en temas prioritarios para la salud en América Latina y el Caribe

[EXTRACTO]. La evidencia científica procedente de estudios de investigación de alta calidad es importante para mejorar la salud mundial y la equidad en la salud. En los entornos con recursos limitados, son esenciales los conocimientos y las herramientas que sean pertinentes a escala regional a fin de reforzar la efectividad de los servicios de salud y reducir la carga de enfermedad. La creación de sistemas nacionales de investigación en salud que se centren en las prioridades locales en América Latina y el Caribe puede facilitar la investigación de alta calidad y fortalecer la capacidad de realizarla. Durante los últimos 15 años, el gasto general en investigación y desarrollo en la región ha aumentado de 0,57% a 0,8% del producto interno bruto (PIB). Sin embargo, esta cifra es todavía muy inferior al nivel de la inversión en los países de la Organización de Cooperación y Desarrollo Económicos (2,5% a 2,8% del PIB)...

[EXTRACTO]. Evidências científicas provenientes de pesquisas de alta qualidade são importantes para melhorar a saúde e a equidade na saúde no nível globo. Quando os recursos são limitados, conhecimentos e ferramentas regionais relevantes são essenciais para fortalecer a efetividade dos serviços de saúde e reduzir a carga de doenças. A criação de sistemas nacionais de pesquisa em saúde focados nas prioridades locais na América Latina e no Caribe (ALC) pode facilitar a realização de pesquisas de alta qualidade e fortalecer a capacidade de realização de pesquisas. Nos últimos 15 anos, em geral o gasto com pesquisa e desenvolvimento na Região aumentou de 0,57% para 0,8% do produto interno bruto (PIB). Porém, esse nível ainda está muito aquém em relação ao nível dos investimentos feitos por países da Organização para a Cooperação e Desenvolvimento Econômico (2,5-2,8% do PIB)...

Fortalecimiento de la capacidad institucional para la equidad en la investigación en salud: enseñanzas de América Latina y el Caribe

[EXTRACTO]. Actualmente se presta cada vez más atención a los determinantes políticos, económicos, ambientales y sociales de la salud. Esto ha generado una mayor demanda de investigación para la salud a nivel mundial que incluya a los países de ingresos bajos y medianos, con objeto de alcanzar los objetivos de desarrollo sostenible de las Naciones Unidas. Además del financiamiento, se necesitan suficientes recursos humanos e infraestructura para que estos países lleguen a ser asociados en un plano de igualdad con las instituciones de investigación internacionalmente reconocidas de los países de ingresos altos que establecen las agendas de investigación, y para garantizar que el programa de investigación mundial refleje sus necesidades. Las limitaciones en la capacidad de investigación y las grandes disparidades existentes entre los países de ingresos altos y los de ingresos bajos y medianos en cuanto a su capacidad de producir y usar la investigación para la salud han contribuido a producir una falta de evidencia que permita fundamentar la práctica clínica y orientar las políticas sanitarias regionales y mundiales. Esto ha perpetuado las desigualdades en la salud...

[EXTRACTO]. Existe atualmente um maior reconhecimento dos determinantes políticos, econômicos, ambientais e sociais da saúde. A consequência disso foi um aumento da demanda por pesquisa em saúde global, com participação dos países de baixa e média renda, para cumprir os objetivos de desenvolvimento sustentável das Nações Unidas. Além de financiamento, são necessários recursos humanos e infraestrutura suficientes para que esses países se tornem parceiros em igualdade de condições com instituições de pesquisa internacionalmente reconhecidas em países de alta renda que definem as agendas de pesquisa e cuidam para que o programa global de pesquisa em saúde reflita suas necessidades. A limitada capacidade de pesquisa e as grandes disparidades entre países de alta renda e países de baixa e média renda no tocante à capacidade de produzir e usar pesquisas para a saúde contribuíram para a falta de evidências para informar a prática e orientar as políticas de saúde regionais e globais, o que perpetuou as desigualdades em saúde...