Faculty Opinions recommendation of Is health equity considered in systematic reviews of the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group?

Abstract Background Optimal type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1D) care requires lifelong appropriate insulin treatment, which can be provided either by multiple daily injections (MDI) of insulin or by continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII). An increasing number of trials and previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMA) have compared both CSII and MDI but have provided limited information on equity and fairness regarding access to, and the effect of, those insulin devices. This study protocol proposes a clear and transparent methodology for conducting a SRMA of the literature (1) to assess the effect of CSII versus MDI on glycemic and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) among young patients with T1D and (2) to identify health inequalities in the use of CSII. Methods This protocol was developed based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P), the PRISMA-E (PRISMA-Equity 2012 Guidelines), and the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook. We will include randomized clinical trials and non-randomized studies published between January 2000 and June 2019 to assess the effectiveness of CSII versus MDI on glycemic and PROs in young patients with T1D. To assess health inequality among those who received CSII, we will use the PROGRESS framework. To gather relevant studies, a search will be conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database. We will select studies that compared glycemic outcomes (the glycosylated hemoglobin values, severe hypoglycemia episodes, diabetic ketoacidosis events, and/or time spent in range or in hyper-hypoglycemia), and health-related quality of life, as a PRO, between therapies. Screening and selection of studies will be conducted independently by two researchers. Subgroup analyses will be performed according to age group, length of follow-up, and the use of adjunctive technological therapies that might influence glycemic outcomes. Discussion Studies of the average effects of CSII versus MDI may have not assessed their impact on health equity, as some intended populations have been excluded. Therefore, this study will address health equity issues when assessing effects of CSII. The results will be published in a peer-review journal. Ethics approval will not be needed. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42018116474

Download Full-text

Interactive social media interventions to promote health equity: an overview of reviews

Health Promotion and Chronic Disease Prevention in Canada ◽

10.24095/hpcdp.36.4.01 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 36 (4) ◽

pp. 63-75 ◽

Cited By ~ 47

Author(s):

V. Welch ◽

J. Petkovic ◽

J. Pardo Pardo ◽

T. Rader ◽

P. Tugwell

Keyword(s):

At Risk ◽

Social Networks ◽

Social Media ◽

Socioeconomic Status ◽

Health Outcomes ◽

Health Equity ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Low Socioeconomic Status ◽

Populations At Risk ◽

Media Interventions

Introduction Social media use has been increasing in public health and health promotion because it can remove geographic and physical access barriers. However, these interventions also have the potential to increase health inequities for people who do not have access to or do not use social media. In this paper, we aim to assess the effects of interactive social media interventions on health outcomes, behaviour change and health equity. Methods We conducted a rapid response overview of systematic reviews. We used a sensitive search strategy to identify systematic reviews and included those that focussed on interventions allowing two-way interaction such as discussion forums, social networks (e.g. Facebook and Twitter), blogging, applications linked to online communities and media sharing. Results Eleven systematic reviews met our inclusion criteria. Most interventions addressed by the reviews included online discussion boards or similar strategies, either as stand-alone interventions or in combination with other interventions. Seven reviews reported mixed effects on health outcomes and healthy behaviours. We did not find disaggregated analyses across characteristics associated with disadvantage, such as lower socioeconomic status or age. However, some targeted studies reported that social media interventions were effective in specific populations in terms of age, socioeconomic status, ethnicities and place of residence. Four reviews reported qualitative benefits such as satisfaction, finding information and improved social support. Conclusion Social media interventions were effective in certain populations at risk for disadvantage (youth, older adults, low socioeconomic status, rural), which indicates that these interventions may be effective for promoting health equity. However, confirmation of effectiveness would require further study. Several reviews raised the issue of acceptability of social media interventions. Only four studies reported on the level of intervention use and all of these reported low use. More research on established social media platforms with existing social networks is needed, particularly in populations at risk for disadvantage, to assess effects on health outcomes and health equity.

Download Full-text