Search

Objectives: To systematically evaluate definitions of "racial health equity" (RHE) and related terms within health-related academic literature., Study Design and Setting: We systematically evaluated definitions of RHE and related terms within health-related academic articles. Articles published in English were included, and no date restrictions were imposed., Results: We found 20 original articles containing relevant definitions out of 1816 retrieved articles, thirteen of which were published from 2020 to 2023. Themes used in the definitions varied; racism (n = 12) and quality of healthcare (n = 10) were the most common. Additional themes, including social hierarchy or marginalization, discrimination, justice, unmet social needs, and historical events were described within some definitions. Eleven of the included manuscripts defined race as a social construct., Conclusion: This study depicts RHE as an emerging concept with limited consensus on racism, quality of health, and social determinants of health as important underlying frameworks. To center equity efforts and actions under a workable and shared vision, we recommend continued discussions regarding underlying meanings of RHE concepts and propose establishing a definition that promotes unity across health fields and prevents ambiguity., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Systematic reviews hold immense promise as tools to highlight evidence-based practices that can reduce or aim to eliminate racial health disparities. Currently, consensus on centering racial health equity in systematic reviews and other evidence synthesis products is lacking. Centering racial health equity implies concentrating or focusing attention on health equity in ways that bring attention to the perspectives or needs of groups that are typically marginalized., Study Design and Setting: This Cochrane US Network team and colleagues, with the guidance of a steering committee, sought to understand the views of varied interest holders through semistructured interviews and conducted evidence syntheses addressing (1) definitions of racial health equity, (2) logic models and frameworks to centering racial health equity, (3) interventions to reduce racial health inequities, and (4) interest holder engagement in evidence syntheses. Our methods and teams include a primarily American and Canadian lens; however, findings and insights derived from this work are applicable to any region in which racial or ethnic discrimination and disparities in care due to structural causes exist., Results: In this series, we explain why centering racial health equity matters and what gaps exist and may need to be prioritized. The interviews and systematic reviews identified numerous gaps to address racial health equity that require changes not merely to evidence synthesis practices but also to the underlying evidence ecosystem. These changes include increasing representation, establishing foundational guidance (on definitions and causal mechanisms and models, building a substantive evidence base on racial health equity, strengthening methods guidance, disseminating and implementing results, and sustaining new practices)., Conclusion: Centering racial health equity requires consensus on the part of key interest holders. As part of the next steps in building consensus, the manifold gaps identified by this series of papers need to be prioritized. Given the resource constraints, changes in norms around systematic reviews are most likely to occur when evidence-based standards for success are clearly established and the benefits of centering racial health equity are apparent., Plain Language Summary: Racial categories are not based on biology, but racism has negative biological effects. People from racial or ethnic minority groups have often been left out of research and ignored in systematic reviews. Systematic reviews often help clinicians and policymakers with evidence-based decisions. Centering racial health equity in systematic reviews will help clinicians and policymakers to improve outcomes for people from racial or ethnic minority groups. We conducted interviews and a series of four systematic reviews on definitions, logic models and frameworks, methods, interventions, and interest-holder engagement in syntheses. We found that much work remains to be done in centering racial health equity in systematic reviews. Specifically, systematic reviewers need to change who is represented on their teams, establish foundational guidance (on definitions and causal mechanisms and models, identify what interventions work to address racial health equity, strengthen method guidance, disseminate and implement results, and sustain new practices)., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: We aim to (1) evaluate the methods used in systematic reviews of interventions focused on racialized populations to improve racial health equity and (2) examine the types of interventions evaluated for advancing racial health equity in systematic reviews., Study Design and Setting: We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Campbell databases for reviews evaluating interventions focused on racialized populations to mitigate racial health inequities, published from January 2020 to January 2023., Results: We analyzed 157 reviews on racialized populations. Only 22 (14%) reviews addressed racism's role in driving racial health inequities related to the review question. Eleven percent (7) of reviews considered intersectionality when conceptualizing racial inequities. Two-thirds (105, 67%) provided descriptive summaries of included studies rather than synthesizing them. Among those that quantified effect sizes, 54% (21) used biased synthesis methods like vote counting. The most common method assessed was tailoring interventions to meet the needs of racialized populations. Reviews mainly focused on assessing interventions to reduce racial disparities rather than enhancing structural opportunities for racialized populations., Conclusion: Reviews for racial health equity could be improved by enhancing methodologic quality, defining the role of racism in the question, using reliable analytical methods, and assessing process and implementation outcomes. More focus is needed on assessing structural interventions to improve opportunities for racialized populations and prioritize these issues in political and social agendas., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: In the context of profound and persistent racial health inequities, we sought to understand how to define racial health equity in the context of systematic reviews and how to staff, conduct, disseminate, sustain, and evaluate systematic reviews that address racial health equity., Study Design and Setting: The study consisted of virtual, semistructured interviews followed by structured coding and qualitative analyses using NVivo., Results: Twenty-nine individuals, primarily United States-based, including patients, community representatives, systematic reviewers, clinicians, guideline developers, primary researchers, and funders, participated in this study. These interest holders brought up systems of power, injustice, social determinants of health, and intersectionality when conceptualizing racial health equity. They also emphasized including community members with lived experience in review teams. They suggested making changes to systematic review scope, methods, and eligible evidence (such as adapting review methods to include racial health equity considerations in prioritizing topics for reviews, formulating key questions and searches, and specifying outcomes) and broadening evidence to include designs that address implementation and access. Interest holders noted that sustained efforts to center racial health equity in systematic reviews require resources, time, training, and demonstrating value to funders., Conclusion: Interest holders identified changes to the funding, staffing, conduct, dissemination, and implementation of systematic reviews to center racial health equity. Action on these steps requires clear standards for success, an evidence base to support transformative changes, and consensus among interest holders on the way forward., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest There are no competing interests for any author., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To inform methods for centering racial health equity in syntheses, we explored (1) how syntheses that assess health-related interventions and explicitly address racial health inequities have engaged interest holders and (2) guidance for engaging racially and ethnically diverse interest holders., Study Design and Setting: We systematically identified evidence syntheses (searches limited to January 1, 2020, through January 25, 2023) and guidance documents (no search date limits) for this overview. From syntheses we extracted data on engagement rationale and processes and extracted approaches suggested from guidance documents. We summarized findings qualitatively., Results: Twenty-nine of the 157 (18%) eligible syntheses reported using engagement. Syntheses typically lacked robust detail on why and how to use and structure engagement and outcomes/effects of engagement, though syntheses involving Indigenous populations typically included more detail. When reported, engagement typically occurred in early and later synthesis phases. We did not identify guidance documents that specifically intended to provide guidance for engaging racially/ethnically diverse individuals in syntheses; some related guidance described broader equity considerations or engagement in general., Conclusion: This review highlights gaps in understanding of the use of engagement in racial health equity-focused syntheses and in guidance specifically addressing engaging racially and ethnically diverse populations. Syntheses and guidance materials we identified reported limited data addressing the whys, hows, and whats (ie, rationale for, approaches to, resources needed and effects of) of engagement, and we lack information for understanding whether engagement makes a difference to the conduct and findings of syntheses and when and how engagement of specific populations may contribute to centering racial health equity. A more informed understanding of these issues, facilitated by prospective and retrospective descriptions of engagement of diverse interest holders, may help advance actionable guidance and reviews., Plain Language Summary: We identified evidence syntheses (a kind of research that identifies and summarizes findings of individual studies or publications to address research questions) that looked at studies of interventions to improve differences in effects on health for racial or ethnic populations to see (1) if and how they incorporated perspectives of interest holders, people with an interest in the subject being studied; (2) what guidance for how to engage or involve racially or ethnically diverse interest holders exists. We found that 29 of 157 syntheses addressing interventions to improve differences in effects on health reported involving interest holders but typically did not provide much detail about how to involve people. Syntheses that involved Indigenous people usually had more information, but overall, the syntheses did not have much information about how to involve people and what the impact of involving them may be. We did not find guidance information that specifically set out to provide information about engaging racially/ethnically diverse individuals in syntheses; some related guidance described considerations about involving people in syntheses in general. This review highlights gaps in understanding of how to engage people in racial health equity-focused syntheses and in guidance specifically addressing engaging racially and ethnically diverse populations. Syntheses and guidance materials we identified reported limited information about whys, hows, and whats (ie, reasons to use, how to do, and resources needed and effects of) related to engagement, and we lack information to help understand whether engagement makes a difference in doing syntheses and when and how engagement of specific populations may help to address racial health equity., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest There are no competing interests for the authors., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To identify evidence syntheses of health interventions addressing racial health equity reporting the use of equity-focused frameworks and logic models., Study Design and Setting: The search strategy included three sources; a search of three bibliographic databases to identify systematic reviews assessing interventions to improve racial health equity, semistructured interviews with diverse group and a targeted organization website searches (eg, National Institute of Health, United States Preventive Services Task Force) to identify relevant logic models and frameworks. The searches were conducted between January 1, 2020, and January 25, 2023. We used a qualitative approach to identify and describe key characteristics of equity-focused logic models and frameworks used in evidence syntheses., Results: Of the 153 racial health equity-focused evidence syntheses identified, two explicitly used logic models to describe the intervention mechanism. We identified seven existing health equity frameworks from semistructured interviews and electronic search of key websites that were categorized by stated purpose as providing guidance for 1) research, 2) health policy, 3) digital health-care solutions, and 4) clinical preventive services. Two out of seven frameworks included guidance on integrating frameworks or logic models in evidence synthesis while the majority provided contextual information on how to define or consider race or racism as a structural determinant of health., Conclusion: There is limited use of logic models and frameworks in evidence syntheses addressing racial health equity. There is a need for more applied frameworks providing guidance for framing, conducting and interpreting findings of evidence syntheses addressing racial health equity., Plain Language Summary: The goal of this study was to find reviews of health programs that focus on improving racial health equity, and to see if they used special frameworks or models designed to address equity. To do this, we searched three major research databases, conducted interviews with a diverse group of people, and looked at relevant organization websites (like the National Institute of Health and the World Health Organization) between January 2020 and January 2023. We used a qualitative approach to study the key features of these equity-focused frameworks and models. We found 153 reviews focused on racial health equity, but only two of them used logic models to explain the intervention. From interviews and website searches, we identified seven existing health equity frameworks. These were grouped into four categories: research, health policy, digital health care, and clinical preventive services. Only two of these frameworks provided advice on how to use them in evidence reviews, while most focused on understanding how race and racism impact health as a social factor. In conclusion, there is limited use of frameworks and models in reviews about racial health equity. More practical frameworks are needed to help guide the research and interpretation of these reviews., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest There are no competing interests for any author., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Outcome differences driven by variation in Blacks' biologic response to treatment may contribute to persistent racial disparities in asthma morbidity and mortality. This review assessed systematic variation in β 2 agonist treatment outcomes among Blacks compared to other groups., Methods: We conducted a systematic review of studies reporting differential response to β 2 agonists among Blacks, including studies identifying pharmacogenetic variants., Results: Of 3158 papers, 20 compared safety or efficacy of β 2 agonists among Blacks as compared with other subgroups. Six papers evaluating efficacy of short-acting β 2 agonists (SABA) found similar or improved results among Blacks compared with other groups, while one small study found reduced response to SABA therapy among Blacks. Reports of safety and efficacy of long-acting β 2 agonists (LABA) indicated similar results among Blacks in four papers, while four reports found reduced safety among Blacks, as compared with other groups. Four papers assessed genomic variation and relative treatment response in Blacks, with two finding significant effects of the p.Arg16Gly variant in ADRB2 on β 2 agonist response and one finding significant gene-gene IL6/IL6R interaction effects on albuterol response., Conclusions: Evidence suggests the potential for differences in β 2 agonist outcomes among Blacks compared with other groups. This literature, however, remains small and significantly underpowered for substantive conclusions. There are notable opportunities for adequately-powered investigations exploring safety and efficacy of β 2 agonists among Blacks, including pharmacogenomic modifiers of response., (Copyright © 2020 National Medical Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Systematic reviews should provide balanced assessments of benefits and harms, while focusing on the most important outcomes. Selection of harms to be reviewed can be a challenge due to the potential for large numbers of diverse harms., Study Design and Setting: A workgroup of methodologists from Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs) developed consensus-based guidance on selection and prioritization of harms in systematic reviews. Recommendations were informed by a literature scan, review of Evidence-based Practice Center reports, and interviews with experts in conducting reviews or assessing harms and persons representing organizations that commission or use systematic reviews., Results: Ten recommendations were developed on selection and prioritization of harms, including routinely focusing on serious as well as less serious but frequent or bothersome harms; routinely engaging stakeholders and using literature searches and other data sources to identify important harms; using a prioritization process (formal or less formal) to inform selection decisions; and describing the methods used to select and prioritize harms., Conclusion: We provide preliminary guidance for a more structured approach to selection and prioritization of harms in systematic reviews., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: In 2011, an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposed that de-identified human data and specimens be included in biobanks only if patients provide consent. The National Institutes of Health Genomic Data Sharing policy went into effect in 2015, requiring broad consent from almost all research participants., Methods: We conducted a systematic literature review of attitudes toward biobanking, broad consent, and data sharing. Bibliographic databases included MEDLINE, Web of Science, EthxWeb, and GenETHX. Study screening was conducted using DistillerSR., Results: The final 48 studies included surveys (n = 23), focus groups (n = 8), mixed methods (n = 14), interviews (n = 1), and consent form analyses (n = 2). Study quality was characterized as good (n = 19), fair (n = 27), and poor (n = 2). Although many participants objected, broad consent was often preferred over tiered or study-specific consent, particularly when broad consent was the only option, samples were de-identified, logistics of biobanks were communicated, and privacy was addressed. Willingness for data to be shared was high, but it was lower among individuals from under-represented minorities, individuals with privacy and confidentiality concerns, and when pharmaceutical companies had access to data., Conclusions: Additional research is needed to understand factors affecting willingness to give broad consent for biobank research and data sharing in order to address concerns to enhance acceptability.Genet Med 18 7, 663-671.

Currently, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Common Format for nursing homes (NHs) accommodates voluntary reporting for 4 adverse events: falls with injury, pressure ulcers, medication errors, and infections. In 2015, AHRQ funded a technical brief to describe the state of the science related to safety in the NH setting to inform a research agenda. Thirty-six recent systematic reviews evaluated NH safety-related interventions to address these 4 adverse events and reported mostly mixed evidence about effective approaches to ameliorate them. Furthermore, these 4 events are likely inadequate to capture safety issues that are unique to the NH setting and encompass other domains related to residents' quality of care and quality of life. Future research needs include expanding our definition of safety in the NH setting, which differs considerably from that of hospitals, to include contributing factors to adverse events as well as more resident-centered care measures. Second, future research should reflect more rigorous implementation science to include objective measures of care processes related to adverse events, intervention fidelity, and staffing resources for intervention implementation to inform broader uptake of efficacious interventions. Weaknesses in implementation contribute to the current inconclusive and mixed evidence base as well as remaining questions about what outcomes are even achievable in the NH setting, given the complexity of most resident populations. Also related to implementation, future research should determine the effects of specific staffing models on care processes related to safety outcomes. Last, future efforts should explore the potential for safety issues in other care settings for older adults, most notably dementia care within assisted living., (Copyright © 2016 AMDA – The Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine. All rights reserved.)