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

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

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

A scoping review establishes need for consensus guidance on reporting health equity in observational studies

Objective 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 STROBE (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 Centre on Health Sciences Information up to January 2022. We also searched reference lists and grey 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 thirty-four 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”. Conclusions 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- and evidence-based guideline for reporting health equity in observational studies

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.</p