MyMedR

Displaying all 4 publications

Abstract:

Sort:

Fulltext Assessing evidence of interventions addressing inequity among migrant populations: a two-stage systematic review

Yadee J, Bangpan M, Thavorn K, Welch V, Tugwell P, Chaiyakunapruk N

Int J Equity Health, 2019 05 06;18(1):64.
PMID: 31060570 DOI: 10.1186/s12939-019-0970-x

BACKGROUND: Everyone has the right to achieve the standard of health and well-being. Migrants are considered as vulnerable populations due to the lack of access to health services and financial protection in health. Several interventions have been developed to improve migrant population health, but little is known about whether these interventions have considered the issue of equity as part of their outcome measurement.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the evidence of health interventions in addressing inequity among migrants.
METHODS: We adopted a two-stage searching approach to ensure the feasibility of this review. First, reviews of interventions for migrants were searched from five databases: PubMed, Cochrane, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and EMBASE until June 2017. Second, full articles included in the identified reviews were retrieved. Primary studies included in the identified reviews were then evaluated as to whether they met the following criteria: experimental studies which include equity aspects as part of their outcome measurement, based on equity attributes defined by PROGRESS-Plus factors (place of residence, race/ethnicity, occupation, gender, religion, education, socio-economic status, social capital, and others). We analysed the information extracted from the selected articles based on the PRISMA-Equity guidelines and the PROGRESS-Plus factors.
RESULTS: Forty-nine reviews involving 1145 primary studies met the first-stage inclusion criteria. After exclusion of 764 studies, the remaining 381 experimental studies were assessed. Thirteen out of 381 experimental studies (3.41%) were found to include equity attributes as part of their outcome measurement. However, although some associations were found none of the included studies demonstrated the effect of the intervention on reducing inequity. All studies were conducted in high-income countries. The interventions included individual directed, community education and peer navigator-related interventions.
CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence reveals that there is a paucity of studies assessing equity attributes of health interventions developed for migrant populations. This indicates that equity has not been receiving attention in these studies of migrant populations. More attention to equity-focused outcome assessment is needed to help policy-makers to consider all relevant outcomes for sound decision making concerning migrants.
Fulltext Assessment of health equity consideration in masking/PPE policies to contain COVID-19 using PROGRESS-plus framework: a systematic review

Chhibber A, Kharat A, Kneale D, Welch V, Bangpan M, Chaiyakunapruk N

BMC Public Health, 2021 Sep 16;21(1):1682.
PMID: 34525995 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-021-11688-7

INTRODUCTION: There is increasing evidence that COVID-19 has unmasked the true magnitude of health inequity worldwide. Policies and guidance for containing the infection and reducing the COVID-19 related deaths have proven to be effective, however the extent to which health inequity factors were considered in these policies is rather unknown. The aim of this study is to measure the extent to which COVID-19 related policies reflect equity considerations by focusing on the global policy landscape around wearing masks and personal protection equipment (PPE).
METHODS: A systematic search for published documents on COVID-19 and masks/PPE was conducted across six databases: PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, ERIC, ASSIA and Psycinfo. Reviews, policy documents, briefs related to COVID-19 and masks/PPE were included in the review. To assess the extent of incorporation of equity in the policy documents, a guidance framework known as 'PROGRESS-Plus': Place of residence, Race/ethnicity, Occupation, Gender/sex, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status, Social capital, Plus (age, disability etc.) was utilized.
RESULTS: This review included 212 policy documents. Out of 212 policy documents, 190 policy documents (89.62%) included at least one PROGRESS-plus component. Most of the policy documents (n = 163, 85.79%) focused on "occupation" component of the PROGRESS-plus followed by personal characteristics associated with discrimination (n = 4;2.11%), place of residence (n = 2;1.05%) and education (n = 1;0.53%). Subgroup analysis revealed that most of the policy documents (n = 176, 83.01%) were focused on "workers" such as healthcare workers, mortuary workers, school workers, transportation workers, essential workers etc. Of the remaining policy documents, most were targeted towards whole population (n = 30; 14.15%). Contrary to "worker focused" policy documents, most of the 'whole population focused' policy documents didn't have a PROGRESS-plus equity component rendering them equity limiting for the society.
CONCLUSION: Our review highlights even if policies considered health inequity during the design/implementation, this consideration was often one dimensional in nature. In addition, population wide policies should be carefully designed and implemented after identifying relevant equity related barriers in order to produce better outcomes for the whole society.
PROTOCOL: In-person interventions to reduce social isolation and loneliness: An evidence and gap map

Welch V, Tanjong Ghogomu E, Dowling S, Choo WY, Yunus RM, Mohd TAMT, et al.

Campbell Syst Rev, 2023 Sep;19(3):e1340.
PMID: 37361556 DOI: 10.1002/cl2.1340

This is the protocol for an evidence and gap map. The objectives are as follows: This EGM aims to map available evidence on the effects of in-person interventions to reduce social isolation and/or loneliness across all age groups in all settings.
Fulltext Methodological guidance for incorporating equity when informing rapid-policy and guideline development

Dewidar O, Kawala BA, Antequera A, Tricco AC, Tovey D, Straus S, et al.

J Clin Epidemiol, 2022 Oct;150:142-153.
PMID: 35863618 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.07.007

OBJECTIVES: We provide guidance for considering equity in rapid reviews through examples of published COVID-19 rapid reviews.
STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This guidance was developed based on a series of methodological meetings, review of internationally renowned guidance such as the Cochrane Handbook and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis for equity-focused systematic reviews (PRISMA-Equity) guideline. We identified Exemplar rapid reviews by searching COVID-19 databases and requesting examples from our team.
RESULTS: We proposed the following key steps: 1. involve relevant stakeholders with lived experience in the conduct and design of the review; 2. reflect on equity, inclusion and privilege in team values and composition; 3. develop research question to assess health inequities; 4. conduct searches in relevant disciplinary databases; 5. collect data and critically appraise recruitment, retention and attrition for populations experiencing inequities; 6. analyse evidence on equity; 7. evaluate the applicability of findings to populations experiencing inequities; and 8. adhere to reporting guidelines for communicating review findings. We illustrated these methods through rapid review examples.
CONCLUSION: Implementing this guidance could contribute to improving equity considerations in rapid reviews produced in public health emergencies, and help policymakers better understand the distributional impact of diseases on the population.