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 2.258million 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 15min journey by car from the place of residence to the tertiary care emergency department with the shortest journey (ie, 15min 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

Effects of high volume saline enemas vs no enema during labour – The N-Ma Randomised Controlled Trial [ISRCTN43153145]

BACKGROUND: Enemas are used during labour in obstetric settings with the belief that they reduce puerperal and neonatal infections, shorten labour duration, and make delivery cleaner for attending personnel. However, a systematic review of the literature found insufficient evidence to support the use of enemas. The objective of this RCT was to address an identified knowledge gap by determining the effect of routine enemas used during the first stage of labour on puerperal and neonatal infection rates. METHODS: Design: RCT (randomised controlled trial; randomized clinical trial). Outcomes: Clinical diagnosis of maternal or neonatal infections, labour duration, delivery types, episiotomy rates, and prescription of antibiotics Setting: Tertiary care referral hospital at the Javeriana University (Bogotá, Colombia) that attended 3170 births during study period with a caesarean section rate of 26%. Participants: 443 women admitted for delivery to the obstetrics service (February 1997 to February 1998) and followed for a month after delivery. Inclusion criteria were women with: low risk pregnancy and expected to remain in Bogotá during follow up; gestational age ≥ 36 weeks; no pelvic or systemic bacterial infection; intact membranes; cervix dilatation ≤7 cm. Intervention: 1 litre saline enema, versus no enema, allocated following a block random allocation sequence and using sealed opaque envelopes. RESULTS: Allocation provided balanced groups and 86% of the participants were followed up for one month. The overall infection rate for newborns was 21%, and 18% for women. We found no significant differences in puerperal or neonatal infection rates (Puerperal infection: 41/190 [22%] with enema v 26/182 [14%] without enema; RR 0.66 CI 95%: 0.43 to 1.03; neonatal infection 38/191 [20%] with enema v 40/179 [22%] without enema; RR 1.12, 95% CI 95% 0.76 to 1.66), and median labour time was similar between groups (515 min. with enema v 585 min. without enema; P = 0.24). Enemas didn't significantly change episiorraphy dehiscence rates (21/182 [12%] with enema v 32/190 [17%] without enema; P = 0.30). CONCLUSION: This RCT found no evidence to support routine use of enemas during labour. Although these results cannot rule out a small clinical effect, it seems unlikely that enemas will improve maternal and neonatal outcomes and provide an overall benefit

Social innovation in health: a critical but overlooked component of the COVID-19 pandemic response

The COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly disrupted the provision of health services across the globe. Travel to hospitals is restricted and many health facilities have limited services, deepening financial problems for some clinics and hospitals.1 Vulnerable groups who are already marginalised by their gender, race or nationality have been disproportionately affected by COVID-19.2 In response, social innovations have been developed to protect vulnerable groups and rapidly pivot health systems towards COVID-19. Social innovations in health are inclusive solutions that meet the needs of end users through a multistakeholder, community-engaged process to address the healthcare delivery gap.3 Social innovation is particularly well suited for the COVID-19 response because it focuses on local needs, develops low-cost solutions and builds on community strengths (figure 1). In partnership with partner academic institutions, the Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases launched the Social Innovation in Health Initiative (SIHI) in 2014. SIHI focuses on research, training and advocacy related to social innovation in health. In collaboration with partners, the network organised an online open event to discuss social innovation responses to emergencies.4 This piece highlights how social innovation has contributed to the COVID-19 response and presents three examples of social innovation projects that have adapted to the pandemic. These examples demonstrate how social innovation during COVID-19 has mobilised local communities, swiftly adapted existing health services and built strong partnerships

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

Reporting of health equity considerations in cluster and individually randomized trials

CITATION: Petkovic, J., et al. 2020. Reporting of health equity considerations in cluster and individually randomized trials. Trials, 21:308, doi:10.1186/s13063-020-4223-5.The original publication is available at https://trialsjournal.biomedcentral.comBackground: 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 healthequity 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 pilottested 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.https://trialsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13063-020-4223-5Publisher's versio

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