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

Prioritizing a research agenda on built environments and physical activity : a twin panel Delphi consensus process with researchers and knowledge users

Background The growth of urban dwelling populations globally has led to rapid increases of research and policy initiatives addressing associations between the built environment and physical activity (PA). Given this rapid proliferation, it is important to identify priority areas and research questions for moving the field forward. The objective of this study was to identify and compare research priorities on the built environment and PA among researchers and knowledge users (e.g., policy makers, practitioners). Methods Between September 2022 and April 2023, a three-round, modified Delphi survey was conducted among two independent panels of international researchers (n = 38) and knowledge users (n = 23) to identify similarities and differences in perceived research priorities on the built environment and PA and generate twin ‘top 10’ lists of the most important research needs. Results From a broad range of self-identified issues, both panels ranked in common the most pressing research priorities including stronger study designs such as natural experiments, research that examines inequalities and inequities, establishing the cost effectiveness of interventions, safety and injuries related to engagement in active transportation (AT), and considerations for climate change and climate adaptation. Additional priorities identified by researchers included: implementation science, research that incorporates Indigenous perspectives, land-use policies, built environments that support active aging, and participatory research. Additional priorities identified by knowledge users included: built environments and PA among people living with disabilities and a need for national data on trip chaining, multi-modal travel, and non-work or school-related AT. Conclusions Five common research priorities between the two groups emerged, including (1) to better understand causality, (2) interactions with the natural environment, (3) economic evaluations, (4) social disparities, and (5) preventable AT-related injuries. The findings may help set directions for future research, interdisciplinary and intersectoral collaborations, and funding opportunities

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

SYT1-associated neurodevelopmental disorder: a case series.

Synaptotagmin 1 (SYT1) is a critical mediator of fast, synchronous, calcium-dependent neurotransmitter release and also modulates synaptic vesicle endocytosis. This paper describes 11 patients with de novo heterozygous missense mutations in SYT1. All mutations alter highly conserved residues, and cluster in two regions of the SYT1 C2B domain at positions Met303 (M303K), Asp304 (D304G), Asp366 (D366E), Ile368 (I368T) and Asn371 (N371K). Phenotypic features include infantile hypotonia, congenital ophthalmic abnormalities, childhood-onset hyperkinetic movement disorders, motor stereotypies, and developmental delay varying in severity from moderate to profound. Behavioural characteristics include sleep disturbance and episodic agitation. Absence of epileptic seizures and normal orbitofrontal head circumference are important negative features. Structural MRI is unremarkable but EEG disturbance is universal, characterized by intermittent low frequency high amplitude oscillations. The functional impact of these five de novo SYT1 mutations has been assessed by expressing rat SYT1 protein containing the equivalent human variants in wild-type mouse primary hippocampal cultures. All mutant forms of SYT1 were expressed at levels approximately equal to endogenous wild-type protein, and correctly localized to nerve terminals at rest, except for SYT1M303K, which was expressed at a lower level and failed to localize at nerve terminals. Following stimulation, SYT1I368T and SYT1N371K relocalized to nerve terminals at least as efficiently as wild-type SYT1. However, SYT1D304G and SYT1D366E failed to relocalize to nerve terminals following stimulation, indicative of impairments in endocytic retrieval and trafficking of SYT1. In addition, the presence of SYT1 variants at nerve terminals induced a slowing of exocytic rate following sustained action potential stimulation. The extent of disturbance to synaptic vesicle kinetics is mirrored by the severity of the affected individuals' phenotypes, suggesting that the efficiency of SYT1-mediated neurotransmitter release is critical to cognitive development. In summary, de novo dominant SYT1 missense mutations are associated with a recognizable neurodevelopmental syndrome, and further cases can now be diagnosed based on clinical features, electrophysiological signature and mutation characteristics. Variation in phenotype severity may reflect mutation-specific impact on the diverse physiological functions of SYT1

Multidimensional scaling analysis of psychopathy in male juveniles using the PCL: YV

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to examine the structure of juvenile psychopathy, as measured by the Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version (PCL: YV). Design/methodology/approach: Using a sample of 2,042 male youths from the USA, Canada, and the UK, the study was a conceptual replication of Bishopp and Hare’s (2008) multidimensional scaling (MDS) analysis of adult male offenders assessed with the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised. Findings: The scaling analyses generally replicated those obtained by Bishopp and Hare, providing support for a multidimensional, four-factor model of juvenile psychopathy similar to that obtained with adults. However, a small number of items fell outside their predicted regions. Slight differences in the structure of juvenile psychopathy were found for incarcerated and supervised samples of youth, with the four-factor model breaking down slightly for the supervised sample

Improving social justice in observational studies : protocol for the development of a global and Indigenous STROBE-equity reporting guideline

Altres ajuts: Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), grant number 173269.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

Effects of guaranteed basic income interventions on poverty‐related outcomes in high‐income countries: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Abstract Background High‐income countries offer social assistance (welfare) programs to help alleviate poverty for people with little or no income. These programs have become increasingly conditional and stringent in recent decades based on the premise that transitioning people from government support to paid work will improve their circumstances. However, many people end up with low‐paying and precarious jobs that may cause more poverty because they lose benefits such as housing subsidies and health and dental insurance, while incurring job‐related expenses. Conditional assistance programs are also expensive to administer and cause stigma. A guaranteed basic income (GBI) has been proposed as a more effective approach for alleviating poverty, and several experiments have been conducted in high‐income countries to investigate whether GBI leads to improved outcomes compared to existing social programs. Objectives The aim of this review was to conduct a synthesis of quantitative evidence on GBI interventions in high‐income countries, to compare the effectiveness of various types of GBI versus “usual care” (including existing social assistance programs) in improving poverty‐related outcomes. Search Methods Searches of 16 academic databases were conducted in May 2022, using both keywords and database‐specific controlled vocabulary, without limits or restrictions on language or date. Sources of gray literature (conference, governmental, and institutional websites) were searched in September 2022. We also searched reference lists of review articles, citations of included articles, and tables of contents of relevant journals in September 2022. Hand searching for recent publications was conducted until December 2022. Selection Criteria We included all quantitative study designs except cross‐sectional (at one timepoint), with or without control groups. We included studies in high income countries with any population and with interventions meeting our criteria for GBI: unconditional, with regular payments in cash (not in‐kind) that were fixed or predictable in amount. Although two primary outcomes of interest were selected a priori (food insecurity, and poverty level assessed using official, national, or international measures), we did not screen studies on the basis of reported outcomes because it was not possible to define all potentially relevant poverty‐related outcomes in advance. Data Collection and Analysis We followed the Campbell Collaboration conduct and reporting guidelines to ensure a rigorous methodology. The risk of bias was assessed across seven domains: confounding, selection, attrition, motivation, implementation, measurement, and analysis/reporting. We conducted meta‐analyses where results could be combined; otherwise, we presented the results in tables. We reported effect estimates as standard mean differences (SMDs) if the included studies reported them or provided sufficient data for us to calculate them. To compare the effects of different types of interventions, we developed a GBI typology based on the characteristics of experimental interventions as well as theoretical conceptualizations of GBI. Eligible poverty‐related outcomes were classified into categories and sub‐categories, to facilitate the synthesis of the individual findings. Because most of the included studies analyzed experiments conducted by other researchers, it was necessary to divide our analysis according to the “experiment” stage (i.e., design, recruitment, intervention, data collection) and the “study” stage (data analysis and reporting of results). Main Results Our searches yielded 24,476 records from databases and 80 from other sources. After screening by title and abstract, the full texts of 294 potentially eligible articles were retrieved and screened, resulting in 27 included studies on 10 experiments. Eight of the experiments were RCTs, one included both an RCT site and a “saturation” site, and one used a repeated cross‐sectional design. The duration ranged from one to 5 years. The control groups in all 10 experiments received “usual care” (i.e., no GBI intervention). The total number of participants was unknown because some of the studies did not report exact sample sizes. Of the studies that did, the smallest had 138 participants and the largest had 8019. The risk of bias assessments found “some concerns” for at least one domain in all 27 studies and “high risk” for at least one domain in 25 studies. The risk of bias was assessed as high in 21 studies due to attrition and in 22 studies due to analysis and reporting bias. To compare the interventions, we developed a classification framework of five GBI types, four of which were implemented in the experiments, and one that is used in new experiments now underway. The included studies reported 176 poverty‐related outcomes, including one pre‐defined primary outcome: food insecurity. The second primary outcome (poverty level assessed using official, national, or international measures) was not reported in any of the included studies. We classified the reported outcomes into seven categories: food insecurity (as a category), economic/material, physical health, psychological/mental health, social, educational, and individual choice/agency. Food insecurity was reported in two studies, both showing improvements (SMD = −0.57, 95% CI: −0.65 to −0.49, and SMD = −0.41, 95% CI: −0.57 to −0.26) which were not pooled because of different study designs. We conducted meta‐analyses on four secondary outcomes that were reported in more than one study: subjective financial well‐being, self‐rated overall physical health, self‐rated life satisfaction, and self‐rated mental distress. Improvements were reported, except for overall physical health or if the intervention was similar to existing social assistance. The results for the remaining 170 outcomes, each reported in only one study, were summarized in tables by category and subcategory. Adverse effects were reported in some studies, but only for specific subgroups of participants, and not consistently, so these results may have been due to chance. Authors' Conclusions The results of the included studies were difficult to synthesize because of the heterogeneity in the reported outcomes. This was due in part to poverty being multidimensional, so outcomes covered various aspects of life (economic, social, psychological, educational, agency, mental and physical health). Evidence from future studies would be easier to assess if outcomes were measured using more common, validated instruments. Based on our analysis of the included studies, a supplemental type of GBI (provided along with existing programs) may be effective in alleviating poverty‐related outcomes. This approach may also be safer than a wholesale reform of existing social assistance approaches, which could have unintended consequences

Guidance relevant to the reporting of health equity in observational research: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Health inequities are defined as unfair and avoidable differences in health between groups within a population. Most health research is conducted through observational studies, which are able to offer real-world insights about etiology, healthcare policy/programme effectiveness and the impacts of socioeconomic factors. However, most published reports of observational studies do not address how their findings relate to health equity. Our team seeks to develop equity-relevant reporting guidance as an extension of the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement. This scoping review will inform the development of candidate items for the STROBE-Equity extension. We will operationalise equity-seeking populations using the PROGRESS-Plus framework of sociodemographic factors. As part of a parallel stream of the STROBE-Equity project, the relevance of candidate guideline items to Indigenous research will be led by Indigenous coinvestigators on the team. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute method for conducting scoping reviews. We will evaluate the extent to which the identified guidance supports or refutes our preliminary candidate items for reporting equity in observational studies. These candidate items were developed based on items from equity-reporting guidelines for randomised trials and systematic reviews, developed by members of this team. We will consult with our knowledge users, patients/public partners and Indigenous research steering committee to invite suggestions for relevant guidance documents and interpretation of findings. If the identified guidance suggests the need for additional candidate items, they will be developed through inductive thematic analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: We will follow a principled approach that promotes ethical codevelopment with our community partners, based on principles of cultural safety, authentic partnerships, addressing colonial structures in knowledge production and the shared ownership, interpretation, and dissemination of research. All products of this research will be published as open access