Emergency care with lay responders in underserved populations: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the individual and community health effects of task shifting for emergency care in low-resource settings and underserved populations worldwide. METHODS: We systematically searched 13 databases and additional grey literature for studies published between 1984 and 2019. Eligible studies involved emergency care training for laypeople in underserved or low-resource populations, and any quantitative assessment of effects on the health of individuals or communities. We conducted duplicate assessments of study eligibility, data abstraction and quality. We synthesized findings in narrative and tabular format. FINDINGS: Of 19 308 papers retrieved, 34 studies met the inclusion criteria from low- and middle-income countries (21 studies) and underserved populations in high-income countries (13 studies). Targeted emergency conditions included trauma, burns, cardiac arrest, opioid poisoning, malaria, paediatric communicable diseases and malnutrition. Trainees included the general public, non-health-care professionals, volunteers and close contacts of at-risk populations, all trained through in-class, peer and multimodal education and public awareness campaigns. Important clinical and policy outcomes included improvements in community capacity to manage emergencies (14 studies), patient outcomes (13 studies) and community health (seven studies). While substantial effects were observed for programmes to address paediatric malaria, trauma and opioid poisoning, most studies reported modest effect sizes and two reported null results. Most studies were of weak (24 studies) or moderate quality (nine studies). CONCLUSION: First aid education and task shifting to laypeople for emergency care may reduce patient morbidity and mortality and build community capacity to manage health emergencies for a variety of emergency conditions in underserved and low-resource settings.

Defining and measuring health equity in research on task shifting in high-income countries: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Task shifting interventions have been implemented to improve health and address health inequities. Little is known about how inequity and vulnerability are defined and measured in research on task shifting. We conducted a systematic review to identify how inequity and vulnerability are identified, defined and measured in task shifting research from high-income countries. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We implemented a novel search process to identify programs of research concerning task shifting interventions in high-income countries. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and CENTRAL to identify articles published from 2004 to 2016. Each program of research incorporated a "parent" randomized trial and "child" publications or sub-studies arising from the same research group. Two investigators extracted (1) study details, (2) definitions and measures of health equity or population vulnerability, and (3) assessed the quality of the reporting and measurement of health equity and vulnerability using a five-point scale developed for this study. We summarized the findings using a narrative approach. RESULTS: Fifteen programs of research met inclusion criteria, involving 15 parent randomized trials and 62 child publications. Included programs of research were all undertaken in the United States, among Hispanic- (5/15), African- (2/15), and Korean-Americans (1/15), and low socioeconomic status (2/15), rural (2/15) and older adult populations (2/15). Task shifting interventions included community health workers, peers, and a variety of other non-professional and lay workers to address a range of non-communicable diseases. Some research provided robust analyses of the affected populations' health inequities and demonstrated how a task shifting intervention redressed those concerns. Other studies provided no such definitions and measured only biomedical endpoints. CONCLUSION: Included studies vary substantially in the definition and measurement of health inequity and vulnerability. A more precise theoretical and evaluative framework for task shifting is recommended to effectively achieve the goal of equitable health.

Defining and measuring health equity effects in research on task shifting interventions in high-income countries: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Task shifting interventions are intended to both deliver clinically effective treatments to reduce disease burden and address health inequities or population vulnerability. Little is known about how health equity and population vulnerability are defined and measured in research focused on task shifting. This systematic review will address the following questions: Among task shifting interventions in high-income settings that have been studied using randomised controlled trials or variants, how are health inequity or population vulnerability identified and defined? What methods and indicators are used to describe, characterise and measure the population's baseline status and the intervention's impacts on inequity and vulnerability? METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Studies were identified through database searches (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Web of Science). Eligible studies will be randomised controlled trials published since 2004, conducted in high-income countries, concerning task shifting interventions to treat any disease, in any population that may face health disadvantage as defined by the PROGRESS-Plus framework (place of residence, race/ethnicity/culture/language, occupation, gender/sex, religion, social capital, socioeconomic position, age, disability, sexual orientation, other vulnerable groups). We will conduct independent and duplicate title and abstract screening, then identify related papers from the same programme of research through further database and manual searching. From each programme of research, we will extract study details, and definitions and measures of health equity or population vulnerability based on the PROGRESS-Plus framework. Two investigators will assess the quality of reporting and measurement related to health equity and vulnerability using a scale developed for this study. A narrative synthesis will highlight similarities and differences between the gathered studies and offer critical analyses and implications. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This review does not involve primary data collection, does not constitute research on human subjects and is not subject to additional institutional ethics review or informed consent procedures. Dissemination will include open-access peer-reviewed publication and academic conference presentations.PROSPERO Registration Number CRD42017049959.

Health effects of training laypeople to deliver emergency care in underserviced populations: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The Disease Control Priorities Project recommends emergency care training for laypersons in low-resource settings, but evidence for these interventions has not yet been systematically reviewed. This review will identify the individual and community health effects of educating laypeople to deliver prehospital emergency care interventions in low-resource settings. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This systematic review addresses the following question: in underserviced populations and low-resource settings (P), does first aid or emergency care training or education for laypeople (I) confer any individual or community health benefit for emergency health conditions (O), in comparison with no training or other forms of education (C)? We restrict this review to studies reporting quantitatively measurable outcomes, and search 12 electronic bibliographic databases and grey literature sources. A team of expert content and methodology reviewers will conduct title and abstract screening and full-text review, using a custom-built online platform. Two investigators will independently extract methodological variables and outcomes related to patient-level morbidity and mortality and community-level effects on resilience or emergency care capacity. Two investigators will independently assess external validity, selection bias, performance bias, measurement bias, attrition bias and confounding. We will summarise the findings using a narrative approach to highlight similarities and differences between the gathered studies. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Formal ethical approval is not required. RESULTS: The results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication and knowledge translation strategy. REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42014009685.