The impacts of profound gender discrimination on the survival of girls and women in son-preference countries - A systematic review.

Amartya Sen first used the phrase 'missing women' to describe a survival disadvantage for women exposed to extreme gender discrimination in son-preference countries. In 1989 he estimated that, despite a biological survival advantage for females, there were 100 million fewer women in Asia and north Africa than expected. He blamed corrosive gender discrimination restricting the resources needed for survival. This systematic review examined demographic evidence on the impacts of profound gender discrimination on the survival of girls and women in son-preference countries. Thirty-four included studies provided consistent evidence of lower-than-expected female survival in 15 societies. Male-to-female sex ratios rose particularly in China and India between the 1980s and 2010s, despite general improvements in female mortality. High sex ratios in South Korea, however, returned to biologically normal levels. The number of 'missing women' rose steadily from 61 million in 1970 to 126 million in 2010 and was predicted to continue to rise until 2035. The number of 'missing women' in the world increased in relative and absolute terms between 1980 and 2020. Profound discrimination reduces female survival at every stage of life. Future research is needed to understand the complete pathways and mechanisms leading to poorer survival and the major policy drivers of these trends to devise the best possible ways of preventing the tragedy of 'missing women'

Age-adjusted associations between comorbidity and outcomes of COVID-19: a review of the evidence

ABSTRACT Background Current evidence suggests that older people and people with underlying comorbidities are at increased risk of severe disease and death following hospitalisation with COVID-19. As comorbidity increases with age, it is necessary to understand the age-adjusted relationship between comorbidity and COVID-19 outcomes, in order to enhance planning capabilities and our understanding of COVID-19. Methods We conducted a rapid, comprehensive review of the literature up to 10 April 2020, to assess the international empirical evidence on the association between comorbidities and severe or critical care outcomes of COVID-19, after accounting for age, among hospitalised patients with COVID-19. Results After screening 579 studies, we identified seven studies eligible for inclusion and these were synthesised narratively. All were from China. The emerging evidence base mostly indicates that after adjustment for age (and in some cases other potential confounders), obesity, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive airways disease (COPD), and cancer are all associated with worse outcomes. The largest study, using a large nationwide sample of COVID-19 patients in China, found that those with multiple comorbidities had more than twice the risk of a severe outcome or death compared with patients with no comorbidities, after adjusting for age and smoking (HR=2.59, 95% CI 1.61, 4.17). Conclusions This review summarises for clinicians, policymakers, and academics the most robust evidence to date on this topic, to inform the management of patients and control measures for tackling the pandemic. Given the intersection of comorbidity with ethnicity and social disadvantage, these findings also have important implications for health inequalities. As the pandemic develops, further research should confirm these trends in other settings outside China and explore mechanisms by which various underlying health conditions increase risk of severe COVID-19

An exploration of the statutory Healthy Start vitamin supplementation scheme in North West England.

BACKGROUND: Government nutritional welfare support from the English 'Healthy Start' scheme is targeted at low-income pregnant women and preschool children, but take-up of its free food vouchers is much better than its free vitamin vouchers. While universal implementation probably requires a more extensive scheme to be cost-effective, the everyday experience of different ways of receiving or facilitating Healthy Start, especially via children's centres, also requires further evidence. This study therefore aimed to explore (in the context of low take-up levels) perceptions of mothers, health professionals, and commissioners about Healthy Start vitamin and food voucher take-up and compare experiences in a targeted and a universal implementation-area for those vitamins. METHODS: Informed by quantitative analysis of take-up data, qualitative analysis focused on 42 semi-structured interviews with potentially eligible mothers and healthcare staff (and commissioners), purposively sampled via children's centres in a similarly deprived universal and a targeted implementation-area of North West England. RESULTS: While good food voucher take-up appeared to relate to clear presentation, messaging, practicality, and monetary (albeit low) value, poor vitamin take-up appeared to relate to overcomplicated procedures and overreliance on underfunded centres, organizational goodwill, and families' resilience. CONCLUSION: Higher 'universal' vitamin take-up may well have reflected fewer barriers when it became everyone's business to be vitamin-aware. Substantive Healthy Start reform in England (not just cosmetic tinkering) is long overdue. Our study highlights that 'policy, politics, and problem' should be aligned to reach considerable unmet need

An exploration of the statutory Healthy Start vitamin supplementation scheme in North West England

Background Government nutritional welfare support from the English ‘Healthy Start’ scheme is targeted at low-income pregnant women and preschool children, but take-up of its free food vouchers is much better than its free vitamin vouchers. While universal implementation probably requires a more extensive scheme to be cost-effective, the everyday experience of different ways of receiving or facilitating Healthy Start, especially via children’s centres, also requires further evidence. This study therefore aimed to explore (in the context of low take-up levels) perceptions of mothers, health professionals, and commissioners about Healthy Start vitamin and food voucher take-up and compare experiences in a targeted and a universal implementation-area for those vitamins. Methods Informed by quantitative analysis of take-up data, qualitative analysis focused on 42 semi-structured interviews with potentially eligible mothers and healthcare staff (and commissioners), purposively sampled via children’s centres in a similarly deprived universal and a targeted implementation-area of North West England. Results While good food voucher take-up appeared to relate to clear presentation, messaging, practicality, and monetary (albeit low) value, poor vitamin take-up appeared to relate to overcomplicated procedures and overreliance on underfunded centres, organizational goodwill, and families’ resilience. Conclusion Higher ‘universal’ vitamin take-up may well have reflected fewer barriers when it became everyone’s business to be vitamin-aware. Substantive Healthy Start reform in England (not just cosmetic tinkering) is long overdue. Our study highlights that ‘policy, politics, and problem’ should be aligned to reach considerable unmet need

Undergraduate public health curriculum for UK medical schools : consensus statement 2014

“The doctor’s role must be defined by what is in the best interest of patients and of the population served. […] All doctors have a role in the maintenance and promotion of population health, through evidence based practice. Some will enhance the health of the population through taking on roles in health education or research, service improvement and re‐design, in public health and through health advocacy.” (Medical Schools Council 2008

Age-Adjusted Associations Between Comorbidity and Outcomes of COVID-19: A Review of the Evidence From the Early Stages of the Pandemic

Objectives: Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, people with underlying comorbidities were overrepresented in hospitalised cases of COVID-19, but the relationship between comorbidity and COVID-19 outcomes was complicated by potential confounding by age. This review therefore sought to characterise the international evidence base available in the early stages of the pandemic on the association between comorbidities and progression to severe disease, critical care, or death, after accounting for age, among hospitalised patients with COVID-19.Methods: We conducted a rapid, comprehensive review of the literature (to 14 May 2020), to assess the international evidence on the age-adjusted association between comorbidities and severe COVID-19 progression or death, among hospitalised COVID-19 patients – the only population for whom studies were available at that time.Results: After screening 1,100 studies, we identified 14 eligible for inclusion. Overall, evidence for obesity and cancer increasing risk of severe disease or death was most consistent. Most studies found that having at least one of obesity, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, heart disease, cancer, or chronic lung disease was significantly associated with worse outcomes following hospitalisation. Associations were more consistent for mortality than other outcomes. Increasing numbers of comorbidities and obesity both showed a dose-response relationship. Quality and reporting were suboptimal in these rapidly conducted studies, and there was a clear need for additional studies using population-based samples.Conclusions: This review summarises the most robust evidence on this topic that was available in the first few months of the pandemic. It was clear at this early stage that COVID-19 would go on to exacerbate existing health inequalities unless actions were taken to reduce pre-existing vulnerabilities and target control measures to protect groups with chronic health conditions.</jats:p

A Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) systematic review of: What works best for health professions students using mobile (hand-held) devices for educational support on clinical placements? BEME Guide No. 52

Background: Ingrained assumptions about clinical placements (clerkships) for health professions students pursuing primary basic qualifications might undermine best educational use of mobile devices. Question: What works best for health professions students using mobile (hand-held) devices for educational support on clinical placements? Methods: A Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) effectiveness-review of ‘justification’ complemented by ‘clarification’ and ‘description’ research searched: MEDLINE, ERIC (Educational Resource Information Center), Web of Science, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), PsycInfo, Cochrane Central, Scopus (1988-2016). Reviewer-pairs screened titles/abstracts. One pair coded, extracted, and synthesized evidence, working within the pragmatism paradigm. Summary of results: From screening 2,279 abstracts, 49 articles met inclusion-criteria, counting four systematic reviews for context. The 45 articles of at least Kirkpatrick K2 primary research mostly contributed K3 (39/45, 86.7%), mixed methods (21/45, 46.7%), and S4-strength (about one-half) evidence. Mobile devices particularly supported student: assessment; communication; clinical decision-making; logbook/notetaking; and accessing information (in about two-thirds). Informal and hidden curricula included: ---concerns about: disapproval; confidentiality and privacy; security ---distraction by social connectivity and busy clinical settings; ---mixed messages about policy. Discussion & Conclusion: This idiosyncratic evidence-base of modest robustness suggested that mobile devices provide potentially powerful educational support on clinical placement, particularly with student transitions, metalearning, and care contribution. Explicit policy must tackle informal and hidden curricula though, addressing concerns about transgressions

Mediators of socioeconomic inequalities in preterm birth: a systematic review.

BackgroundRates of preterm birth are substantial with significant inequalities. Understanding the role of risk factors on the pathway from maternal socioeconomic status (SES) to preterm birth can help inform interventions and policy. This study therefore aimed to identify mediators of the relationship between maternal SES and preterm birth, assess the strength of evidence, and evaluate the quality of methods used to assess mediation.MethodsUsing Scopus, Medline OVID, "Medline In Process & Other Non-Indexed Citation", PsycINFO, and Social Science Citation Index (via Web of Science), search terms combined variations on mediation, socioeconomic status, and preterm birth. Citation and advanced Google searches supplemented this. Inclusion criteria guided screening and selection of observational studies Jan-2000 to July-2020. The metric extracted was the proportion of socioeconomic inequality in preterm birth explained by each mediator (e.g. 'proportion eliminated'). Included studies were narratively synthesised.ResultsOf 22 studies included, over one-half used cohort design. Most studies had potential measurement bias for mediators, and only two studies fully adjusted for key confounders. Eighteen studies found significant socioeconomic inequalities in preterm birth. Studies assessed six groups of potential mediators: maternal smoking; maternal mental health; maternal physical health (including body mass index (BMI)); maternal lifestyle (including alcohol consumption); healthcare; and working and environmental conditions. There was high confidence of smoking during pregnancy (most frequently examined mediator) and maternal physical health mediating inequalities in preterm birth. Significant residual inequalities frequently remained. Difference-of-coefficients between models was the most common mediation analysis approach, only six studies assessed exposure-mediator interaction, and only two considered causal assumptions.ConclusionsThe substantial socioeconomic inequalities in preterm birth are only partly explained by six groups of mediators that have been studied, particularly maternal smoking in pregnancy. There is, however, a large residual direct effect of SES evident in most studies. Despite the mediation analysis approaches used limiting our ability to make causal inference, these findings highlight potential ways of intervening to reduce such inequalities. A focus on modifiable socioeconomic determinants, such as reducing poverty and educational inequality, is probably necessary to address inequalities in preterm birth, alongside action on mediating pathways