A Scoping Review Exploration of the Intended and Unintended Consequences of eHealth on Older People:A Health Equity Impact Assessment

eHealth is one perceived mechanism to extend the range and reach of limited health-care resources for older adults. A decade-scoping review (2007–2017) was conducted to systematically search and synthesize evidence to understand the intended and unintended consequences of eHealth initiatives, informed by a health equity impact assessment framework. Scoping review sources included international academic and grey literature on eHealth initiatives (e.g., eHealth records, telemedicine/telecare, and mobile eHealth application) focused on the varying needs of older adults (aged 60+), particularly individuals experiencing sociocultural and economic difficulties. Findings suggest that eHealth has several potential benefits for older adults, but also the possibility of further excluding already marginalized groups, thereby exacerbating existing health disparities. Ongoing evaluation of eHealth initiatives for older adults is necessary and requires attention to unique individual-level, socioeconomic, and cultural characteristics to heighten benefits and better capture both the intended and unintended outcomes of advanced eHealth systems.peerReviewe

Association of Early Interventions With Birth Outcomes and Child Linear Growth in Low-Income and Middle-Income Countries:Bayesian Network Meta-analyses of Randomized Clinical Trials

Importance:The first 1000 days of life represent a critical window for child development. Pregnancy, exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) period (0-6 months), and complementary feeding (CF) period (6-24 months) have different growth requirements, so separate considerations for intervention strategies are needed. No synthesis to date has attempted to quantify the associations of interventions under multiple domains of micronutrient and balanced energy protein and food supplements, deworming, maternal education, water sanitation, and hygiene across these 3 life periods with birth and growth outcomes. Objective: To determine the magnitude of association of interventions with birth and growth outcomes based on randomized clinical trials (RCTs) conducted in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) using Bayesian network meta-analyses. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched from their inception up to August 14, 2018. Study Selection: Included were LMIC-based RCTs of interventions provided to pregnant women, infants (0-6 months), and children (6-24 months). Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two independent reviewers used a standardized data extraction and quality assessment form. Random-effects network meta-analyses were performed for each life period. Effect sizes are reported as odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences (MeanDiffs) for dichotomous and continuous outcomes, with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). This study calculated probabilities of interventions being superior to standard of care by at least a minimal clinically important difference. Main Outcomes and Measures. The study compared ORs on preterm birth and MeanDiffs on birth weight for pregnancy, length for age (LAZ) for EBF, and height for age (HAZ) for CF. Results: Among 302 061 participants in 169 randomized clinical trials, the network meta-analyses found several nutritional interventions that demonstrated greater association with improved birth and growth outcomes compared with standard of care. For instance, compared with standard of care, maternal supplements of multiple micronutrients showed reduced odds for preterm birth (OR, 0.54; 95% CrI, 0.27-0.97) and improved mean birth weight (MeanDiff, 0.08 kg; 95% CrI, 0.00-0.17 kg) but not LAZ during EBF (MeanDiff, −0.02; 95% CrI, −0.18 to 0.14). Supplementing infants and children with multiple micronutrients showed improved LAZ (MeanDiff, 0.20; 95% CrI, 0.03-0.35) and HAZ (MeanDiff, 0.14; 95% CrI, 0.02-0.25). The study found that pregnancy interventions generally had higher probabilities of a minimal clinically importance difference than the interventions for the EBF or CF in the first 1000 days of life. Conclusions and Relevance: These analyses highlight the importance of intervening early for child development, during pregnancy if possible. Results of this study suggest that there is a need to combine interventions from multiple domains and test for their effectiveness as a package

Systematic review of basket trials, umbrella trials, and platform trials: a landscape analysis of master protocols

Background: Master protocols, classified as basket trials, umbrella trials, and platform trials, are novel designs that investigate multiple hypotheses through concurrent sub-studies (e.g., multiple treatments or populations or that allow adding/removing arms during the trial), offering enhanced efficiency and a more ethical approach to trial evaluation. Despite the many advantages of these designs, they are infrequently used. Methods: We conducted a landscape analysis of master protocols using a systematic literature search to determine what trials have been conducted and proposed for an overall goal of improving the literacy in this emerging concept. On July 8, 2019, English-language studies were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases and hand searches of published reviews and registries. Results: We identified 83 master protocols (49 basket, 18 umbrella, and 16 platform trials). The number of master protocols has increased rapidly over the last five years. Most have been conducted in the US (n = 44/83) and investigated experimental drugs (n = 82/83) in the field of oncology (n = 76/83). The majority of basket trials were exploratory (i.e., phase I/II; n = 47/49) and not randomized (n = 44/49), and more than half (n = 28/48) investigated only a single intervention. The median sample size of basket trials was 205 participants (interquartile range, Q3-Q1 [IQR]: 500–90 = 410), and the median study duration was 22.3 (IQR: 74.1–42.9 = 31.1) months. Similar to basket trials, most umbrella trials were exploratory (n = 16/18), but the use of randomization was more common (n = 8/18). The median sample size of umbrella trials was 346 participants (IQR: 565–252 = 313), and the median study duration was 60.9 (IQR: 81.3–46.9 = 34.4) months. The median number of interventions investigated in umbrella trials was 5 (IQR: 6–4 = 2). The majority of platform trials were randomized (n = 15/16), and phase III investigation (n = 7/15; one did not report information on phase) was more common in platform trials with four of them using seamless II/III design. The median sample size was 892 (IQR: 1835–255 = 1580), and the median study duration was 58.9 (IQR: 101.3–36.9 = 64.4) months. Conclusions: We anticipate that the number of master protocols will continue to increase at a rapid pace over the upcoming decades. More efforts to improve awareness and training are needed to apply these innovative trial design methods to fields outside of oncology.Medicine, Faculty ofNon UBCExperimental Medicine, Division ofMedicine, Department ofPopulation and Public Health (SPPH), School ofReviewedFacult