Search

Abstract Background There are meaningful gaps in equitable access to Primary Health Care (PHC), especially for vulnerable populations after widespread reforms in Western countries. The Innovative Models Promoting Access-to-Care Transformation (IMPACT) research program is a Canadian-Australian collaboration that aims to improve access to PHC for vulnerable populations. Relationships were developed with stakeholders in six regions across Canada and Australia where access-related needs could be identified. The most promising interventions would be implemented and tested to address the needs identified. This realist review was conducted to understand how community coalition and outreach (e.g., mobile or pop-up) services improve access for underserved vulnerable residents. Objective To inform the development and delivery of an innovative intervention to increase access to PHC for vulnerable populations. Methods A realist review was conducted in collaboration with the Local Innovative Partnership (LIP) research team and the IMPACT research members who conducted the review. We performed an initial comprehensive systematic search using MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library up to October 19, 2015, and updated it on August 8, 2020. Studies were included if they focused on interventions to improve access to PHC using community coalition, outreach services or mobile delivery methods. We included Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs), and systematic reviews. Studies were screened by two independent reviewers and the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework was used for data extraction and framework analysis to obtain themes. The LIP research team was also allowed to suggest additional papers not included at screening. Results We included 43 records, comprising 31 RCTs, 11 systematic reviews, and 1 case control study that was added by the LIP research team. We identified three main themes of PHC interventions to promote access for vulnerable residents, including: 1) tailoring of materials and services decreases barriers to primary health care, 2) services offered where vulnerable populations gather increases the “reach” of the interventions, 3) partnerships and collaborations lead to positive health outcomes. In addition, implementation designs and reporting elements should be considered. Conclusion Realist reviews can help guide the development of locally adapted primary health care interventions.

Abstract Background Addressing persistent and pervasive health inequities is a global moral imperative, which has been highlighted and magnified by the societal and health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Observational studies can aid our understanding of the impact of health and structural oppression based on the intersection of gender, race, ethnicity, age and other factors, as they frequently collect this data. However, the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline, does not provide guidance related to reporting of health equity. The goal of this project is to develop a STROBE-Equity reporting guideline extension. Methods We assembled a diverse team across multiple domains, including gender, age, ethnicity, Indigenous background, disciplines, geographies, lived experience of health inequity and decision-making organizations. Using an inclusive, integrated knowledge translation approach, we will implement a five-phase plan which will include: (1) assessing the reporting of health equity in published observational studies, (2) seeking wide international feedback on items to improve reporting of health equity, (3) establishing consensus amongst knowledge users and researchers, (4) evaluating in partnership with Indigenous contributors the relevance to Indigenous peoples who have globally experienced the oppressive legacy of colonization, and (5) widely disseminating and seeking endorsement from relevant knowledge users. We will seek input from external collaborators using social media, mailing lists and other communication channels. Discussion Achieving global imperatives such as the Sustainable Development Goals (e.g., SDG 10 Reduced inequalities, SDG 3 Good health and wellbeing) requires advancing health equity in research. The implementation of the STROBE-Equity guidelines will enable a better awareness and understanding of health inequities through better reporting. We will broadly disseminate the reporting guideline with tools to enable adoption and use by journal editors, authors, and funding agencies, using diverse strategies tailored to specific audiences.

Introduction Health inequities are defined as unfair and avoidable differences in health between groups within a population. Most health research is conducted through observational studies, which are able to offer real-world insights about etiology, healthcare policy/programme effectiveness and the impacts of socioeconomic factors. However, most published reports of observational studies do not address how their findings relate to health equity. Our team seeks to develop equity-relevant reporting guidance as an extension of the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement. This scoping review will inform the development of candidate items for the STROBE-Equity extension. We will operationalise equity-seeking populations using the PROGRESS-Plus framework of sociodemographic factors. As part of a parallel stream of the STROBE-Equity project, the relevance of candidate guideline items to Indigenous research will be led by Indigenous coinvestigators on the team.Methods and analysis We will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute method for conducting scoping reviews. We will evaluate the extent to which the identified guidance supports or refutes our preliminary candidate items for reporting equity in observational studies. These candidate items were developed based on items from equity-reporting guidelines for randomised trials and systematic reviews, developed by members of this team. We will consult with our knowledge users, patients/public partners and Indigenous research steering committee to invite suggestions for relevant guidance documents and interpretation of findings. If the identified guidance suggests the need for additional candidate items, they will be developed through inductive thematic analysis.Ethics and dissemination We will follow a principled approach that promotes ethical codevelopment with our community partners, based on principles of cultural safety, authentic partnerships, addressing colonial structures in knowledge production and the shared ownership, interpretation, and dissemination of research. All products of this research will be published as open access.

Objectives Despite inpatient rehabilitation, many older adults post-hip fracture have difficulty returning to their prefracture levels of function and activity. This scoping review aims to identify interventions for community-dwelling older adults discharged from inpatient rehabilitation and examine the function and activity outcomes associated with these interventions.Design This scoping review followed Arksey and O’Malley’s five-stage framework.Data sources We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EMBASE and Ageline electronic databases for English-language articles published between January 1946 and January 2020.Eligibility criteria We included studies with health and social interventions involving community-dwelling older adults and their caregivers after hip fracture and inpatient rehabilitation. The interventions were selected if initiated within 60 days post-hip fracture surgery.Data extraction and synthesis Two independent reviewers screened abstracts and full texts and extracted the data based on the inclusion criteria. A third reviewer adjudicated any disagreement and collated the extracted data.Results Of the 24 studies included in the review, most studies (79%) used exercise-based interventions, over half (63%) included activities of daily living training and/or home assessment and environment modification as intervention components, and three studies used social intervention components. Over half of the interventions (58%) were initiated in the inpatient setting and physiotherapists provided 83% of the interventions. Only seven studies (29%) involved tailored interventions based on the older adults’ unique needs and progress in exercise training. Six studies (25%) enrolled patients with cognitive impairment, and only one study examined caregiver-related outcomes. Exercise-based interventions led to improved function and activity outcomes. 29 different outcome measures were reported.Conclusion While exercise-based multicomponent interventions have evidence for improving outcomes in this population, there is a paucity of studies, including social interventions. Further, studies with standardised outcome measures are needed, particularly focusing on supporting caregivers and the recovery of older adults with cognitive impairment.

Abstract Background Soil transmitted (or intestinal) helminths and schistosomes affect millions of children worldwide. Objectives To use individual participant data network meta‐analysis (NMA) to explore the effects of different types and frequency of deworming drugs on anaemia, cognition and growth across potential effect modifiers. Search Methods We developed a search strategy with an information scientist to search MEDLINE, CINAHL, LILACS, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Econlit, Internet Documents in Economics Access Service (IDEAS), Public Affairs Information Service (PAIS), Social Services Abstracts, Global Health CABI and CAB Abstracts up to March 27, 2018. We also searched grey literature, websites, contacted authors and screened references of relevant systematic reviews. Selection Criteria We included randomised and quasirandomised deworming trials in children for deworming compared to placebo or other interventions with data on baseline infection. Data Collection and Analysis We conducted NMA with individual participant data (IPD), using a frequentist approach for random‐effects NMA. The covariates were: age, sex, weight, height, haemoglobin and infection intensity. The effect estimate chosen was the mean difference for the continuous outcome of interest. Results We received data from 19 randomized controlled trials with 31,945 participants. Overall risk of bias was low. There were no statistically significant subgroup effects across any of the potential effect modifiers. However, analyses showed that there may be greater effects on weight for moderate to heavily infected children (very low certainty evidence). Authors' Conclusions This analysis reinforces the case against mass deworming at a population‐level, finding little effect on nutritional status or cognition. However, children with heavier intensity infections may benefit more. We urge the global community to adopt calls to make data available in open repositories to facilitate IPD analyses such as this, which aim to assess effects for the most vulnerable individuals.

This review evaluates the effects of mass deworming for soil‐transmitted helminths on growth, educational achievement, cognition, school attendance, quality of life and adverse effects in children in endemic helminth areas. Mass deworming for soil‐transmitted helminths probably has little to no effect on weight, height, school attendance, cognition measured by short‐term attention, or mortality. There are no data on short‐term quality of life and little evidence of adverse effects. Mass deworming for schistosomiasis alone may slightly increase weight but probably has little to no effect on height and cognition. The evidence does not support indirect benefits for untreated children from being exposed to treated children. One moderate quality long term study showed an increase in economic productivity (hours worked) and increase in educational enrollment 10 years later of mass deworming and hygiene promotion. But, it is uncertain whether these effects are due to the deworming or the combined hygiene intervention. Findings are consistent for various groups of the population by age, gender, worm prevalence, baseline nutritional status, compliance, impact on worms, infection intensity, types of worms, risk of bias, and study characteristics. Deworming for children who screened positive for schistosomiasis or soil‐transmitted helminths results in larger gains in weight but no difference in effect on height, cognition or school attendance. Also, one low to moderate quality study showed long‐term benefit on school enrolment of sanitation improvement combined with screening and treating people for hookworm infection. Abstract Background Soil‐transmitted helminthiasis and schistosomiasis, considered among the neglected tropical diseases by the World Health Organization (WHO), affect more than a third of the world's population, with varying intensity of infection. There is debate about the effectiveness and cost‐effectiveness of mass deworming of children as a strategy to improve child health in endemic areas. Objectives The objective of this review was to evaluate the effects of mass deworming for soil‐transmitted helminths with or without deworming for schistosomiasis or co‐interventions on growth, educational achievement, cognition, school attendance, quality of life and adverse effects in children inendemic helminth areas. We also aimed to assess possible effect modifiers using pre‐planned subgroup analysis of age, sex, prevalence of worms and baseline nutritional status. Search strategy Our librarian scientist designed a search strategy that was reviewed by the Campbell Collaboration librarian for the following 11 electronic databases: MEDLINE, CINAHL, LILACS, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Econlit, Internet Documents in Economics Access Service (IDEAS), Public Affairs Information Service (PAIS), Social Services Abstracts, Global Health CABI and CAB Abstracts, up to May 13, 2015. We also searched websites and clinical trial registers, other systematic reviews, and contacted authors and experts in the field. Study selection criteria We included studies if they included children aged six months to 16 years, carried out mass deworming for soil‐transmitted helminths (alone or in combination with other drugs or child health interventions), reported one of our primary outcomes of growth, school attendance, school performance, cognitive processing or development, well‐being, or adverse events, and included a comparator to a control or active comparator. We included randomized trials, quasi‐randomized trials, controlled before after studies, interrupted time series and quasi‐experimental studies that used statistical methods of analysis to match participants with non‐participants, or statistical methods to account for confounding and sample selection bias. Data collection and analysis We screened titles and abstracts in duplicate, as well as the full texts of those considered eligible at level 1. We used a pre‐tested data extraction form to collect details on participants, interventions, outcomes, study methods and setting, and extracted data in duplicate. We conducted random effects pairwise meta‐analysis for all primary outcomes. If heterogeneity was acceptable (I290,000 children. These studies were conducted in 23 low and middle income countries (L&MICs), in areas where prevalence of worms ranged from 0.5 per cent to 99 per cent infected. Most of the studies consisted of deworming twice per year or more frequently, with only two studies deworming once per year. Overall risk of bias was moderate. Mass deworming for soil‐transmitted helminths compared to controls probably has little to no improvement in weight (0.09 kg, 95%CI: ‐0·04 to 0·2; 35,430 participants, 11 trials), height (0.07 cm, 95% CI:‐0.1 cm to 0.24 cm); 6,839 participants, nine trials) or attendance (1% higher, 95% CI: ‐1% to 3%; >30,000 participants, seven trials) (moderate certainty evidence). Mass deworming for soil transmitted helminths leads to little to no difference in proportion stunted (eight per 1000 fewer‐from 48 fewer to 32 more; 4,286 participants, four trials), cognition measured by short‐term attention (‐0·23 points on 100 point scale, 95%CI ‐0·6, 0·14; 4,078 participants, three trials), or mortality (1 per 1000 fewer, 95%CI: ‐3 to 1 per 1000; >1 million participants, six trials) (high certainty evidence). We found no data on short‐term quality of life and little evidence of adverse effects. Mass deworming for schistosomiasis alone may slightly increase weight (0·4 kg, 95%CI: ‐0·2, 1·0) and has little to no effect on height (low certainty evidence) and cognition (moderate certainty evidence). Our analyses do not support indirect benefits for untreated children, from being exposed to treated children in the community (low certainty evidence). There may be increase in long‐term economic productivity (1.58 hours more per week, 95%CI: ‐0.46 to 3.62) and school enrolment (0.29 years, 95%CI 0.01 to 0.58), little to no effect on height (‐0.11 cm, 95%CI: ‐0.64 to 0.42) and self‐reported health (0.04 units, 95%CI: 0.0 to 0.08) of mass deworming when combined with hygiene education, however, it is uncertain whether these effects are due to deworming alone or hygiene or the combination (very low certainty). We are uncertain about long‐term effects on math or English at school and cognitive development due to very low certainty evidence.. Results were congruentacross sensitivity and subgroup analyses by age, sex, worm prevalence, baseline nutritional status, impact on worms, infection intensity, types of worms (ascaris, hookworm or trichuris), risk of bias, cluster vs. individual trials, high compliance and low attrition bias. Deworming for children who screened positive for schistosomiasis or soil‐transmitted helminths resulted in larger gains in weight and no difference in effect on height, cognition or school attendance. Implications for policy and programmes This independent analysis reinforces the case against mass deworming. These findings suggest that in addition to a reconsideration of mass deworming programmes in their current form, additional policy options need to be explored to improve child health and nutrition in worm‐endemic areas. These include the needs for investing in interventions to address basic determinants of worm infestations such as poverty, living conditions, sanitation and inequities. Decisions on public health approaches in such settings need to be taken on the basis of human rights, ethics and evidence‐based, sustainable cost‐effective approaches. For schistosomiasis, the policy implication is that mass deworming may be effective at improving weight. Implications for research Since all analyses of effect modification are limited by aggregate level data which may hide individual level differences, we propose that future research should assess which subset of children does benefit from mass deworming, if any, using individual patient data meta‐analysis. This analysis and other work could focus on whether it is feasible to develop a case‐finding tool with clinical data that could identify children and settings that would benefit from treatment. Plain Language Summary Mass deworming programmes have little or no effect on most welfare outcomes. The Campbell review in brief The effectiveness and cost‐effectiveness of mass deworming of children to improve child health and other outcomes is debated. This independent analysis reinforces the case against mass deworming, finding little or no effect on most welfare outcomes. What is this review about? Soil‐transmitted helminthiasis and schistosomiasis affect more than a third of the world's population. There is debate about the effectiveness and cost‐effectiveness of mass deworming of children to improve child health and other outcomes in endemic areas. This review evaluates the effects of mass deworming for soil‐transmitted helminths on growth, educational achievement, cognition, school attendance, quality of life and adverse effects in children in endemic helminth areas. What studies were included? Included studies examine out mass deworming for soil‐transmitted helminths (alone or in combination with other drugs or child health interventions) for children aged 6 months to 16 years, and report at least one of the following outcomes: growth, school attendance, school performance, cognitive processing or development, well‐being, or adverse events. Included study designs are randomized trials, interrupted time series and non‐experimental studies that used statistical methods of analysis to match participants with non‐participants, or statistical methods to account for confounding and sample selection bias. Sixty‐five studies are analyzed in the review, with a treatment duration from 4 months to 5 years, covering 1,092,120 children, including five long‐term studies 8‐10 years after mass deworming programs with over 90,000 children. These studies were conducted in 23 low and middle income countries. Most programmes studied conduct deworming twice per year or more frequently, with only two studies of programmes deworming just once per year. Does deworming improve child health and other welfare outcomes? Mass deworming for soil‐transmitted helminths probably has little to no effect on weight, height, school attendance, cognition measured by short‐term attention, or mortality. There are no data on short‐term quality of life and little evidence of adverse effects. Mass deworming for schistosomiasis alone may slightly increase weight but probably has little to no effect on height and cognition. The evidence does not support indirect benefits for untreated children from being exposed to treated children. One moderate quality long term study showed an increase in economic productivity (hours worked) and increase in educational enrollment 10 years later of mass deworming and hygiene promotion. But, it is uncertain whether these effects are due to the deworming or the combined hygiene intervention. Findings are consistent for various groups of the population by age, gender, worm prevalence, baseline nutritional status, compliance, impact on worms, infection intensity, types of worms, risk of bias, and study characteristics. Deworming for children who screened positive for schistosomiasis or soil‐transmitted helminths results in larger gains in weight but no difference in effect on height, cognition or school attendance. Also, one low to moderate quality study showed long‐term benefit on school enrolment of sanitation improvement combined with screening and treating people for hookworm infection. What are the implications of this review for policy makers and decision makers? This independent analysis reinforces the case against mass deworming. In addition to a reconsideration of mass deworming programs in their current form, additional policy options need to be explored to improve child health and nutrition in worm‐endemic areas. For schistosomiasis, policy implications are that mass deworming may be effective at improving weight. What are the research implications of this review? Future research should assess which subset of children benefit from mass deworming using individual‐level meta‐analysis. This analysis could explore whether it is feasible to develop a case‐finding tool to identify children and settings which will benefit from treatment.

Summary: Background: Soil-transmitted helminthiasis and schistosomiasis, considered among the neglected tropical diseases by WHO, affect more than a third of the world's population, with varying intensity of infection. We aimed to evaluate the effects of mass deworming for soil-transmitted helminths (with or without deworming for schistosomiasis or co-interventions) on growth, educational achievement, cognition, school attendance, quality of life, and adverse effects in children in endemic helminth areas. Methods: We searched 11 databases up to Jan 14, 2016, websites and trial registers, contacted authors, and reviewed reference lists. We included studies published in any language of children aged 6 months to 16 years, with mass deworming for soil-transmitted helminths or schistosomiasis (alone or in combination with other interventions) for 4 months or longer, that reported the primary outcomes of interest. We included randomised and quasi-randomised trials, controlled before–after studies, interrupted time series, and quasi-experimental studies. We screened in duplicate, then extracted data and appraised risk of bias in duplicate with a pre-tested form. We conducted random-effects meta-analysis and Bayesian network meta-analysis. Findings: We included 52 studies of duration 5 years or less with 1 108 541 children, and four long-term studies 8–10 years after mass deworming programmes with more than 160 000 children. Overall risk of bias was moderate. Mass deworming for soil-transmitted helminths compared with controls led to little to no improvement in weight over a period of about 12 months (0·09 kg, 95% credible interval [CrI] −0·09 to 0·28; moderate certainty evidence) or height (0·07 cm, 95% CrI −0·10 to 0·24; moderate certainty evidence), little to no difference in proportion stunted (eight fewer per 1000 children, 95% CrI −48 to 32; high certainty evidence), cognition measured by short-term attention (−0·23 points on a 100 point scale, 95% CI −0·56 to 0·14; high certainty evidence), school attendance (1% higher, 95% CI −1 to 3; high certainty evidence), or mortality (one fewer per 1000 children, 95% CI −3 to 1; high certainty evidence). We found no data on quality of life and little evidence of adverse effects. Mass deworming for schistosomiasis might slightly increase weight (0·41 kg, 95% CrI −0·20 to 0·91) and has little to no effect on height (low certainty evidence) and cognition (moderate certainty evidence). Our analyses do not suggest indirect benefits for untreated children from being exposed to treated children in the community. We are uncertain about effects on long-term economic productivity (hours worked), cognition, literacy, and school enrolment owing to very low certainty evidence. Results were consistent across sensitivity and subgroup analyses by age, worm prevalence, baseline nutritional status, infection status, impact on worms, infection intensity, types of worms (ascaris, hookworm, or trichuris), risk of bias, cluster versus individual trials, compliance, and attrition. Interpretation: Mass deworming for soil-transmitted helminths with or without deworming for schistosomiasis had little effect. For schistosomiasis, mass deworming might be effective for weight but is probably ineffective for height, cognition, and attendance. Future research should assess which subset of children do benefit from mass deworming, if any, using individual participant data meta-analysis. Funding: Canadian Institutes of Health Research and WHO.

Background: The mitigation of unfair and avoidable differences in health is an increasing global priority. Observational studies including cohort, cross-sectional and case-control studies tend to report social determinants of health which could inform evidence syntheses on health equity and social justice. However, the extent of reporting and analysis of equity in equity-relevant observational studies is unknown. Methods: We define studies which report outcomes for populations at risk of experiencing inequities as “equity-relevant”. Using a random sampling technique we will identify 320 equity-relevant observational studies published between 1 January 2020 to 27 April 2022 by searching the MEDLINE database. We will stratify sampling by 1) studies in high-income countries (HIC) and low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) according to the World Bank classification, 2) studies focused on COVID and those which are not, 3) studies focused on populations at risk of experiencing inequities and those on general populations that stratify their analyses. We will use the PROGRESS framework which stands for place of residence, race or ethnicity, occupation, gender or sex, religion, education, socioeconomic status, social capital, to identify dimensions where inequities may exist. Using a previously developed data extraction form we will pilot-test on eligible studies and revise as applicable. Conclusions: The proposed methodological assessment of reporting will allow us to systematically understand the current reporting and analysis practices for health equity in observational studies. The findings of this study will help inform the development of the equity extension for the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology) reporting guidelines.