Does Consideration and Assessment of Effects on Health Equity Affect the Conclusions of Systematic Reviews? A Methodology Study

INTRODUCTION: Tackling health inequities both within and between countries remains high on the agenda of international organizations including the World Health Organization and local, regional and national governments. Systematic reviews can be a useful tool to assess effects on equity in health status because they include studies conducted in a variety of settings and populations. This study aims to describe the extent to which the impacts of health interventions on equity in health status are considered in systematic reviews, describe methods used, and assess the implications of their equity related findings for policy, practice and research. METHODS: We conducted a methodology study of equity assessment in systematic reviews. Two independent reviewers extracted information on the reporting and analysis of impacts of health interventions on equity in health status in a group of 300 systematic reviews collected from all systematic reviews indexed in one month of MEDLINE, using a pre-tested data collection form. Any differences in data extraction were resolved by discussion. RESULTS: Of the 300 systematic reviews, 224 assessed the effectiveness of interventions on health outcomes. Of these 224 reviews, 29 systematic reviews assessed effects on equity in health status using subgroup analysis or targeted analyses of vulnerable populations. Of these, seven conducted subgroup analyses related to health equity which were reported in insufficient detail to judge their credibility. Of these 29 reviews, 18 described implications for policy and practice based on assessment of effects on health equity. CONCLUSION: The quality and completeness of reporting should be enhanced as a priority, because without this policymakers and practitioners will continue lack the evidence base they need to inform decision-making about health inequity. Furthermore, there is a need to develop methods to systematically consider impacts on equity in health status that is currently lacking in systematic reviews

Effectiveness and safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and opioid treatment for knee and hip osteoarthritis: network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness and safety of different preparations and doses of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioids, and paracetamol for knee and hip osteoarthritis pain and physical function to enable effective and safe use of these drugs at their lowest possible dose. DESIGN: Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, Embase, regulatory agency websites, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to 28 June 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Randomised trials published in English with ≥100 patients per group that evaluated NSAIDs, opioids, or paracetamol (acetaminophen) to treat osteoarthritis. OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The prespecified primary outcome was pain. Physical function and safety outcomes were also assessed. REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers independently extracted outcomes data and evaluated the risk of bias of included trials. Bayesian random effects models were used for network meta-analysis of all analyses. Effect estimates are comparisons between active treatments and oral placebo. RESULTS: 192 trials comprising 102 829 participants examined 90 different active preparations or doses (68 for NSAIDs, 19 for opioids, and three for paracetamol). Five oral preparations (diclofenac 150 mg/day, etoricoxib 60 and 90 mg/day, and rofecoxib 25 and 50 mg/day) had ≥99% probability of more pronounced treatment effects than the minimal clinically relevant reduction in pain. Topical diclofenac (70-81 and 140-160 mg/day) had ≥92.3% probability, and all opioids had ≤53% probability of more pronounced treatment effects than the minimal clinically relevant reduction in pain. 18.5%, 0%, and 83.3% of the oral NSAIDs, topical NSAIDs, and opioids, respectively, had an increased risk of dropouts due to adverse events. 29.8%, 0%, and 89.5% of oral NSAIDs, topical NSAIDs, and opioids, respectively, had an increased risk of any adverse event. Oxymorphone 80 mg/day had the highest risk of dropouts due to adverse events (51%) and any adverse event (88%). CONCLUSIONS: Etoricoxib 60 mg/day and diclofenac 150 mg/day seem to be the most effective oral NSAIDs for pain and function in patients with osteoarthritis. However, these treatments are probably not appropriate for patients with comorbidities or for long term use because of the slight increase in the risk of adverse events. Additionally, an increased risk of dropping out due to adverse events was found for diclofenac 150 mg/day. Topical diclofenac 70-81 mg/day seems to be effective and generally safer because of reduced systemic exposure and lower dose, and should be considered as first line pharmacological treatment for knee osteoarthritis. The clinical benefit of opioid treatment, regardless of preparation or dose, does not outweigh the harm it might cause in patients with osteoarthritis. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO number CRD42020213656

Access to Artemisinin-Based Anti-Malarial Treatment and its Related Factors in Rural Tanzania.

Artemisinin-based combination treatment (ACT) has been widely adopted as one of the main malaria control strategies. However, its promise to save thousands of lives in sub-Saharan Africa depends on how effective the use of ACT is within the routine health system. The INESS platform evaluated effective coverage of ACT in several African countries. Timely access within 24 hours to an authorized ACT outlet is one of the determinants of effective coverage and was assessed for artemether-lumefantrine (Alu), in two district health systems in rural Tanzania. From October 2009 to June 2011we conducted continuous rolling household surveys in the Kilombero-Ulanga and the Rufiji Health and Demographic Surveillance Sites (HDSS). Surveys were linked to the routine HDSS update rounds. Members of randomly pre-selected households that had experienced a fever episode in the previous two weeks were eligible for a structured interview. Data on individual treatment seeking, access to treatment, timing, source of treatment and household costs per episode were collected. Data are presented on timely access from a total of 2,112 interviews in relation to demographics, seasonality, and socio economic status. In Kilombero-Ulanga, 41.8% (CI: 36.6-45.1) and in Rufiji 36.8% (33.7-40.1) of fever cases had access to an authorized ACT provider within 24 hours of fever onset. In neither of the HDSS site was age, sex, socio-economic status or seasonality of malaria found to be significantly correlated with timely access. Timely access to authorized ACT providers is below 50% despite interventions intended to improve access such as social marketing and accreditation of private dispensing outlets. To improve prompt diagnosis and treatment, access remains a major bottle neck and new more innovative interventions are needed to raise effective coverage of malaria treatment in Tanzania

Instrument Selection Using the OMERACT Filter 2.1: The OMERACT Methodology.

Objective: Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Filter 2.1 revised the process used for core outcome measurement set selection to add rigour and transparency in decision making. This paper describes OMERACT’s methodology for instrument selection. Methods: We presented instrument selection processes, tools, and reporting templates at OMERACT 2018, introducing the concept of “3 pillars, 4 questions, 7 measurement properties, 1 answer”. Truth, Discrimination and Feasibility are the three original OMERACT pillars. Based on these, we developed four signaling questions. We introduced the Summary of Measurement Properties (SOMP) table which summarizes the seven measurement properties: Truth (domain match, construct validity), Discrimination (test-retest reliability, longitudinal construct validity (responsiveness), clinical trial discrimination, thresholds of meaning), and Feasibility. These properties address a set of standards which, when met, answer the one question: Is there enough evidence to support the use of this instrument in clinical research of the benefits and harms of treatments in the population and study setting described? The OMERACT Filter 2.1 was piloted on two instruments by the Psoriatic Arthritis Working Group Results: The methodology was reviewed in a full plenary session and facilitated breakout groups. Tools to facilitate retention of the process (i.e., “The OMERACT Way”) were provided. The two instruments were presented and the recommendation of the working group was endorsed in the first OMERACT Filter 2.1 Instrument Selection votes. Conclusion: Instrument Selection using OMERACT Filter 2.1 is feasible and is now being implemented

The harvest plot: A method for synthesising evidence about the differential effects of interventions

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>One attraction of meta-analysis is the forest plot, a compact overview of the essential data included in a systematic review and the overall 'result'. However, meta-analysis is not always suitable for synthesising evidence about the effects of interventions which may influence the wider determinants of health. As part of a systematic review of the effects of population-level tobacco control interventions on social inequalities in smoking, we designed a novel approach to synthesis intended to bring aspects of the graphical directness of a forest plot to bear on the problem of synthesising evidence from a complex and diverse group of studies.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We coded the included studies (n = 85) on two methodological dimensions (suitability of study design and quality of execution) and extracted data on effects stratified by up to six different dimensions of inequality (income, occupation, education, gender, race or ethnicity, and age), distinguishing between 'hard' (behavioural) and 'intermediate' (process or attitudinal) outcomes. Adopting a hypothesis-testing approach, we then assessed which of three competing hypotheses (positive social gradient, negative social gradient, or no gradient) was best supported by each study for each dimension of inequality.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We plotted the results on a matrix ('harvest plot') for each category of intervention, weighting studies by the methodological criteria and distributing them between the competing hypotheses. These matrices formed part of the analytical process and helped to encapsulate the output, for example by drawing attention to the finding that increasing the price of tobacco products may be more effective in discouraging smoking among people with lower incomes and in lower occupational groups.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The harvest plot is a novel and useful method for synthesising evidence about the differential effects of population-level interventions. It contributes to the challenge of making best use of all available evidence by incorporating all relevant data. The visual display assists both the process of synthesis and the assimilation of the findings. The method is suitable for adaptation to a variety of questions in evidence synthesis and may be particularly useful for systematic reviews addressing the broader type of research question which may be most relevant to policymakers.</p

Equity-oriented toolkit for health technology assessment and knowledge translation: application to scaling up of training and education for health workers

Human resources for health are in crisis worldwide, especially in economically disadvantaged areas and areas with high rates of HIV/AIDS in both health workers and patients. International organizations such as the Global Health Workforce Alliance have been established to address this crisis. A technical working group within the Global Health Workforce Alliance developed recommendations for scaling up education and training of health workers. The paper will illustrate how decision-makers can use evidence and tools from an equity-oriented toolkit to scale up training and education of health workers, following five recommendations of the technical working group. The Equity-Oriented Toolkit, developed by the World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Knowledge Translation and Health Technology Assessment in Health Equity, has four major steps: (1) burden of illness; (2) community effectiveness; (3) economic evaluation; and (4) knowledge translation/implementation. Relevant tools from each of these steps will be matched with the appropriate recommendation from the technical working group

Establishing Core Outcome Domains in Hemodialysis: Report of the Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Hemodialysis (SONG-HD) Consensus Workshop

Evidence-informed decision making in clinical care and policy in nephrology is undermined by trials that selectively report a large number of heterogeneous outcomes, many of which are not patient centered. The Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Hemodialysis (SONG-HD) Initiative convened an international consensus workshop on November 7, 2015, to discuss the identification and implementation of a potential core outcome set for all trials in hemodialysis. The purpose of this article is to report qualitative analyses of the workshop discussions, describing the key aspects to consider when establishing core outcomes in trials involving patients on hemodialysis therapy. Key stakeholders including 8 patients/caregivers and 47 health professionals (nephrologists, policymakers, industry, and researchers) attended the workshop. Attendees suggested that identifying core outcomes required equitable stakeholder engagement to ensure relevance across patient populations, flexibility to consider evolving priorities over time, deconstruction of language and meaning for conceptual consistency and clarity, understanding of potential overlap and associations between outcomes, and an assessment of applicability to the range of interventions in hemodialysis. For implementation, they proposed that core outcomes must have simple, inexpensive, and validated outcome measures that could be used in clinical care (quality indicators) and trials (including pragmatic trials) and endorsement by regulatory agencies. Integrating these recommendations may foster acceptance and optimize the uptake and translation of core outcomes in hemodialysis, leading to more informative research, for better treatment and improved patient outcomes