Is health equity considered in systematic reviews of the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group? Tackling the wider social determinants of health and health inequalities: evidence from systematic reviews. Developing methods for systematic reviewing in health services delivery and organization: an example from a review of access to health care for people with learning disabilities. Part 1. Identifying the literature. Appraising the evidence: applying sex- and gender-based analysis (SGBA) to Cochrane systematic reviews on cardiovascular diseases. Improving services for disadvantaged childbearing women. The effects of an 'explicit' values clarification exercise in a woman's decision aid regarding postmenopausal hormone therapy. Examination of the analytic quality of behavioral health randomized clinical trials. Evaluation of an intervention for hospitalized African American smokers. Reducing social inequalities in smoking: can evidence inform policy? A pilot study.
To determine whether Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group (CMSG) systematic reviews and corresponding primary studies of rheumatoid arthritis interventions report and analyze the data needed to assess the effectiveness of interventions in reducing socioeconomic differences in health and/or improving the health of the poor.
                We selected all CMSG reviews on rheumatoid arthritis published since issue 1, 2003. Fourteen reviews were identified; 147 of the 156 primary studies included in these reviews were obtained and assessed. We extracted data on whether the dimensions place of residence, race/ethnicity/culture, occupation, gender, religion, education, socioeconomic status, and social capital and networks (PROGRESS) were reported or analyzed, and whether any interventions were aimed at disadvantaged or low- and middle-income country populations.
                Among the dimensions of PROGRESS reported at baseline in 147 primary studies, gender (89%) was the most commonly reported, followed by education (25%) and race/ethnicity (18%). Less than 50% of the systematic reviews reported dimensions of PROGRESS even when they had been reported in the primary study. Of 147 primary studies, 6 (5%) were aimed specifically at disadvantaged populations; another 6 reported on effectiveness by at least 1 dimension of PROGRESS.
                Primary studies of interventions for rheumatoid arthritis generally reported few variables necessary to answer questions about health inequalities. Most CMSG systematic reviews failed to assess those variables even when described in the primary studies. The Cochrane Health Equity Field welcomes the opportunity to provide guidance to systematic review authors on incorporating equity considerations into their reviews. There is increasing pressure to tackle the wider social determinants of health through the implementation of appropriate interventions. However, turning these demands for better evidence about interventions around the social determinants of health into action requires identifying what we already know and highlighting areas for further development.
                Systematic review methodology was used to identify systematic reviews (from 2000 to 2007, developed countries only) that described the health effects of any intervention based on the wider social determinants of health: water and sanitation, agriculture and food, access to health and social care services, unemployment and welfare, working conditions, housing and living environment, education, and transport.
                Thirty systematic reviews were identified. Generally, the effects of interventions on health inequalities were unclear. However, there is suggestive systematic review evidence that certain categories of intervention may impact positively on inequalities or on the health of specific disadvantaged groups, particularly interventions in the fields of housing and the work environment.
                Intervention studies that address inequalities in health are a priority area for future public health research. Our objectives were to identify literature on: (i) theory, evidence and gaps in knowledge relating to the help-seeking behaviour of people with learning disabilities and their carers; (ii) barriers experienced by people with learning disabilities in securing access to the full range of health services; (iii) interventions which improve access to health services by people with learning disabilities.
                twenty-eight bibliographic databases, research registers, organizational websites or library catalogues; reference lists from identified studies; contact with experts; current awareness and contents alerting services in the area of learning disabilities.
                Inclusion criteria were English language literature from 1980 onwards, relating to people with learning disabilities of any age and all study designs. The main criteria for assessment was relevance to the Guilliford et al. model of access to health care (Gulliford et al. Access to health care. Report of a Scoping Exercise for the National Co-ordinating Centre for NHS Service Delivery and Organisation R & D (NCCSDO). London: NCCSDO, 2001), which was modified to the special needs of people with learning disabilities. Inclusion criteria focused on relevance to the model with initial criteria revised in light of literature identified and comments from a consultation exercise with people with learning disabilities, family and paid carers and experts in the field. Data abstraction was completed independently and selected studies were evaluated for scientific rigour and the results synthesized.
                In total, 2221 items were identified as potentially relevant and 82 studies fully evaluated.
                The process of identifying relevant literature was characterized by a process of clarifying the concept under investigation and sensitive search techniques which led to an initial over-identification of non-relevant records from database searches. Thesaurus terms were of limited value, forcing a reliance on using free-text terms and alternative methods of identifying literature to supplement and improve the recall of the database searches. A key enabler in identifying relevant literature was the depth and breadth of knowledge built up by the reviewers whilst engaged in this process. To examine the use of sex- and gender-based analysis (SGBA) in systematic reviews of cardiovascular health in order to strengthen the evidence base for clinical practice and policy.
                To determine the current status of SGBA in systematic reviews, an appraisal tool was developed by the research team and applied by an independent reviewer to a random sample of 38 Cochrane systematic reviews. The sample was drawn from reviews addressing interventions for cardiovascular diseases (CVD). A random sample of Cochrane reviews in cardiovascular health was selected from the Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2001, to Issue 3, 2007. The main outcome measure was the number of reviews that included analysis of sex or gender or both.
                Our findings showed that SGBA was generally absent in the sampled reviews. Data were rarely disaggregated by sex; only 2 of 38 reviews reported any sex or gender research gaps. Only one quarter of the reviews included a rationale as to why any subgroup analyses by sex were or were not completed. None of the 38 reviews met all of the appraisal tool criteria. As well, we found that where sex or gender was mentioned, the terms were used interchangeably.
                Despite increasing evidence over the past decade documenting that sex and gender frequently matter in CVD, this study demonstrated that SGBA was rarely considered in systematic reviews. We suggest this omission has important implications for assuring the quality of research and of evidence-based policy and practice and for achieving equitable health outcomes for women and men. To build a robust evidence base for future work in cardiovascular health, we propose that the methodologies of systematic reviews and of SGBA be refined and synchronized to enhance the collection, synthesis, and analysis of evidence for decision making. Tackling health inequalities is high on the political agenda of the Labour government. The government wants to reduce inequalities through policies based on evidence, the health of childbearing women and their babies being priority areas for action. National Service Frameworks (NSFs) are being set up to ensure high quality services for all groups. The External Working Group looking into maternity services for the Children's NSF seeks evidence upon which to plan strategies for all women, while focusing attention on the most disadvantaged. Wide differentials are noted between high- and low-income groups in the outcomes of pregnancy and the health of babies. The worst outcomes appear to be concentrated in small subgroups of disadvantaged women.
                To report on a review of studies of interventions improving perinatal outcomes for disadvantaged women, to inform policy and practice around the organization and delivery of statutory services in the UK.
                We searched six relevant databases for reviews, intervention studies, audits and descriptions of services reporting outcomes for disadvantaged groups of women, published between 1990 and 2003. Synthesis was performed around what works and what does not work. Gaps in the evidence base were identified.
                We found limited evidence of effective and promising interventions for childbearing women from minority ethnic groups, women experiencing domestic violence, women with mental health illness and HIV infected women. Few studies were well-designed or powered to detect effectiveness. There were no studies of interventions for women prisoners, homeless women and travellers.
                Searching for intervention studies primarily by participant subgroup has brought in evidence from few well-designed studies on which to plan policy. Combining this approach with searching for intervention studies addressing behaviour like smoking, and needs like social support, may provide further evidence to tackle inequalities in the perinatal period. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the incremental effect of a graphic weigh-scale values clarification exercise to explicitly consider the personal importance of the benefits versus the risks in a woman's decision aid regarding postmenopausal hormone therapy. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. Intervention Decision aid including information on options, benefits and risks, and their probabilities either followed by: (1) a graphic weigh-scale values clarification exercise to explicitly consider the personal importance of each benefit and risk; or (2) a summary of the main benefits and risks to implicitly consider benefits versus the risks. SAMPLE: Two-hundred and one women aged 50-69 years from Ottawa, Canada, who had never used hormone therapy. OUTCOME: Perceived clarity of values, a sub-scale of the decisional conflict scale; congruence between personal values of benefits and risks (measured on 0-10 importance rating scale) and choices (accept, decline, unsure regarding preventive hormone therapy [HRT]) using discriminant function analysis. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between interventions in perceived clarity of values and overall congruence between values and choices. Amongst those choosing HRT, there was a trend in those exposed to the graphic weigh-scale exercise to have better congruence between values and choices compared to implicit values clarification (P = 0.06). CONCLUSION: The use of the graphic weigh-scale exercise in a decision aid conveys no overall short-term benefit. Further study is needed to specifically determine effects in those changing the status quo and on the quality of patient-practitioner communication and persistence with decisions. Adoption of evidence-based practice (EBP) policy has implications for clinicians and researchers alike. In fields that have already adopted EBP, evidence-based practice guidelines derive from systematic reviews of research evidence. Ultimately, such guidelines serve as tools used by practitioners. Systematic reviews of treatment efficacy and effectiveness reserve their strongest endorsements for treatments that are supported by high-quality randomized clinical trials (RCTs). It is unknown how well RCTs reported in behavioral science journals fare compared to quality standards set forth in fields that pioneered the evidence-based movement. We compared analytic quality features of all behavioral health RCTs (n = 73) published in three leading behavioral journals and two leading medical journals between January 2000 and July 2003. A behavioral health trial was operationalized as one employing a behavioral treatment modality to prevent or treat an acute or chronic physical disease or condition. Findings revealed areas of weakness in analytic aspects of the behavioral health RCTs reported in both sets of journals. Weaknesses were more pronounced in behavioral journals. The authors offer recommendations for improving the analytic quality of behavioral health RCTs to ensure that evidence about behavioral treatments is highly weighted in systematic reviews.
                (c) 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. To evaluate the effectiveness of a smoking cessation intervention based on the transtheoretical model of change with a sample of low-income African American smokers admitted to an indigent-care hospital.
                The intervention incorporated components shown to be effective in increasing cessation in other populations, tailored to a bedside counseling format with follow-up contact postdischarge.
                Intervention patients were significantly more likely to advance in stage than were control patients.
                A hospital-offered bedside intervention offers promise in reaching underserved smokers with effective, though limited, cessation assistance. To assess the potential contribution of evidence from existing systematic reviews of effectiveness to answering the question: what works in reducing social inequalities in smoking?
                The Cochrane Library (2002/4).
                Systematic reviews of the effectiveness of community based tobacco control interventions, and all the primary studies included in one of these reviews.
                Reviews and primary studies were assessed for intent to assess the social distribution of intervention effects, information about the social inclusiveness or targeting of interventions, baseline sociodemographic data collected on participants, and estimates of effect size stratified by sociodemographic variables.
                Only one review aimed to examine outcomes stratified by sex, age or socioeconomic status, and these aims were only achieved with respect to sex. Sociodemographic data about participants were frequently collected in primary studies, but not used to compare intervention effects between social groups.
                There may be scope for using existing research more effectively to contribute to evidence based policy to reduce social inequalities in smoking-by explicitly seeking stratified outcome data in new systematic reviews, by re-analysing original datasets, and/or by meta-analysis of individual participant data.
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 assess and report effects on health equity in systematic reviews.