Unweighted regression models perform better than weighted regression techniques for respondent-driven sampling data: results from a simulation study

Background: It is unclear whether weighted or unweighted regression is preferred in the analysis of data derived from respondent driven sampling. Our objective was to evaluate the validity of various regression models, with and without weights and with various controls for clustering in the estimation of the risk of group membership from data collected using respondent-driven sampling (RDS). Methods: Twelve networked populations, with varying levels of homophily and prevalence, based on a known distribution of a continuous predictor were simulated using 1000 RDS samples from each population. Weighted and unweighted binomial and Poisson general linear models, with and without various clustering controls and standard error adjustments were modelled for each sample and evaluated with respect to validity, bias and coverage rate. Population prevalence was also estimated. Results: In the regression analysis, the unweighted log-link (Poisson) models maintained the nominal type-I error rate across all populations. Bias was substantial and type-I error rates unacceptably high for weighted binomial regression. Coverage rates for the estimation of prevalence were highest using RDS-weighted logistic regression, except at low prevalence (10%) where unweighted models are recommended. Conclusions: Caution is warranted when undertaking regression analysis of RDS data. Even when reported degree is accurate, low reported degree can unduly influence regression estimates. Unweighted Poisson regression is therefore recommended.York University Librarie

Back to the basics: Identifying and addressing underlying challenges in achieving high quality and relevant health statistics for indigenous populations in Canada

Abstract. Canada is known internationally for excellence in both the quality and public policy relevance of its health and social statistics. There is a double standard however with respect to the relevance and quality of statistics for Indigenous populations in Canada. Indigenous specific health and social statistics gathering is informed by unique ethical, rights-based, policy and practice imperatives regarding the need for Indigenous participation and leadership in Indigenous data processes throughout the spectrum of indicator development, data collection, management, analysis and use. We demonstrate how current Indigenous data quality challenges including misclassification errors and non-response bias systematically contribute to a significant underestimate of inequities in health determinants, health status, and health care access between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people in Canada. The major quality challenge underlying these errors and biases is the lack of Indigenous specific identifiers that are consistent and relevant in major health and social data sources. The recent removal of an Indigenous identity question from the Canadian census has resulted in further deterioration of an already suboptimal system. A revision of core health data sources to include relevant, consistent, and inclusive Indigenous self-identification is urgently required. These changes need to be carried out in partnership with Indigenous peoples and their representative and governing organizations

International Group for Indigenous Health Measurement: Recommendations for best practice for estimation of Indigenous mortality

AIM: To provide a best practice guide on Indigenous mortality reporting based on recommendations from the International Group for Indigenous Health Measurement. METHOD: A workshop of the International Group for Indigenous Health Measurement was held in Montreal in 2013 during which best practices in determining Indigenous mortality were discussed. A subsequent discussion paper and draft recommendations were further refined at a meeting in Vancouver in 2014. A working group finalized this best practice guide in follow-up to the two meetings. OUTCOME: Ten final recommendations are made regarding identification, community engagement and ownership, data linkage, uncertainty in official statistics and a timeline for implementation. In this paper we review and discuss these recommendations drawing on examples of best practice in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States of America and highlighting some shortcomings in the current practices of official statistical agencies

How effects on health equity are assessed in systematic reviews of interventions.

BACKGROUND: Enhancing health equity has now achieved international political importance with endorsement from the World Health Assembly in 2009.  The failure of systematic reviews to consider effects on health equity is cited by decision-makers as a limitation to their ability to inform policy and program decisions.  OBJECTIVES: To systematically review methods to assess effects on health equity in systematic reviews of effectiveness. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the following databases up to July 2 2010: MEDLINE, PsychINFO, the Cochrane Methodology Register, CINAHL, Education Resources Information Center, Education Abstracts, Criminal Justice Abstracts, Index to Legal Periodicals, PAIS International, Social Services Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, Digital Dissertations and the Health Technology Assessment Database. We searched SCOPUS to identify articles that cited any of the included studies on October 7 2010. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included empirical studies of cohorts of systematic reviews that assessed methods for measuring effects on health inequalities. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted using a pre-tested form by two independent reviewers. Risk of bias was appraised for included studies according to the potential for bias in selection and detection of systematic reviews.  MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-four methodological studies were included.  The methods used by these included studies were: 1) Targeted approaches (n=22); 2) gap approaches (n=12) and gradient approach (n=1).  Gender or sex was assessed in eight out of 34 studies, socioeconomic status in ten studies, race/ethnicity in seven studies, age in seven studies, low and middle income countries in 14 studies, and two studies assessed multiple factors across health inequity may exist.Only three studies provided a definition of health equity. Four methodological approaches to assessing effects on health equity were identified: 1) descriptive assessment of reporting and analysis in systematic reviews (all 34 studies used a type of descriptive method); 2) descriptive assessment of reporting and analysis in original trials (12/34 studies); 3) analytic approaches (10/34 studies); and 4) applicability assessment (11/34 studies). Both analytic and applicability approaches were not reported transparently nor in sufficient detail to judge their credibility. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: 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

Effective knowledge translation approaches and practices in Indigenous health research: A systematic review protocol

Background: Effective knowledge translation (KT) is critical to implementing program and policy changes that require shared understandings of knowledge systems, assumptions, and practices. Within mainstream research institutions and funding agencies, systemic and insidious inequities, privileges, and power relationships inhibit Indigenous peoples' control, input, and benefits over research. This systematic review will examine literature on KT initiatives in Indigenous health research to help identify wise and promising Indigenous KT practices and language in Canada and abroad. Methods: Indexed databases including Aboriginal Health Abstract Database, Bibliography of Native North Americans, CINAHL, Circumpolar Health Bibliographic Database, Dissertation Abstracts, First Nations Periodical Index, Medline, National Indigenous Studies Portal, ProQuest Conference Papers Index, PsycInfo, Social Services Abstracts, Social Work Abstracts, and Web of Science will be searched. A comprehensive list of non-indexed and grey literature sources will also be searched. For inclusion, documents must be published in English; linked to Indigenous health and wellbeing; focused on Indigenous people; document KT goals, activities, and rationale; an

Correction to: Why public health matters today and tomorrow: the role of applied public health research.

The article "Why public health matters today and tomorrow: the role of applied public health research," written by Lindsay McLaren et al., was originally published Online First without Open Access

Why public health matters today and tomorrow: the role of applied public health research.

Public health is critical to a healthy, fair, and sustainable society. Realizing this vision requires imagining a public health community that can maintain its foundational core while adapting and responding to contemporary imperatives such as entrenched inequities and ecological degradation. In this commentary, we reflect on what tomorrow's public health might look like, from the point of view of our collective experiences as researchers in Canada who are part of an Applied Public Health Chairs program designed to support "innovative population health research that improves health equity for citizens in Canada and around the world." We view applied public health research as sitting at the intersection of core principles for population and public health: namely sustainability, equity, and effectiveness. We further identify three attributes of a robust applied public health research community that we argue are necessary to permit contribution to those principles: researcher autonomy, sustained intersectoral research capacity, and a critical perspective on the research-practice-policy interface. Our intention is to catalyze further discussion and debate about why and how public health matters today and tomorrow, and the role of applied public health research therein