Search

Background: High‐income countries offer social assistance (welfare) programs to help alleviate poverty for people with little or no income. These programs have become increasingly conditional and stringent in recent decades based on the premise that transitioning people from government support to paid work will improve their circumstances. However, many people end up with low‐paying and precarious jobs that may cause more poverty because they lose benefits such as housing subsidies and health and dental insurance, while incurring job‐related expenses. Conditional assistance programs are also expensive to administer and cause stigma. A guaranteed basic income (GBI) has been proposed as a more effective approach for alleviating poverty, and several experiments have been conducted in high‐income countries to investigate whether GBI leads to improved outcomes compared to existing social programs. Objectives: The aim of this review was to conduct a synthesis of quantitative evidence on GBI interventions in high‐income countries, to compare the effectiveness of various types of GBI versus "usual care" (including existing social assistance programs) in improving poverty‐related outcomes. Search Methods: Searches of 16 academic databases were conducted in May 2022, using both keywords and database‐specific controlled vocabulary, without limits or restrictions on language or date. Sources of gray literature (conference, governmental, and institutional websites) were searched in September 2022. We also searched reference lists of review articles, citations of included articles, and tables of contents of relevant journals in September 2022. Hand searching for recent publications was conducted until December 2022. Selection Criteria: We included all quantitative study designs except cross‐sectional (at one timepoint), with or without control groups. We included studies in high income countries with any population and with interventions meeting our criteria for GBI: unconditional, with regular payments in cash (not in‐kind) that were fixed or predictable in amount. Although two primary outcomes of interest were selected a priori (food insecurity, and poverty level assessed using official, national, or international measures), we did not screen studies on the basis of reported outcomes because it was not possible to define all potentially relevant poverty‐related outcomes in advance. Data Collection and Analysis: We followed the Campbell Collaboration conduct and reporting guidelines to ensure a rigorous methodology. The risk of bias was assessed across seven domains: confounding, selection, attrition, motivation, implementation, measurement, and analysis/reporting. We conducted meta‐analyses where results could be combined; otherwise, we presented the results in tables. We reported effect estimates as standard mean differences (SMDs) if the included studies reported them or provided sufficient data for us to calculate them. To compare the effects of different types of interventions, we developed a GBI typology based on the characteristics of experimental interventions as well as theoretical conceptualizations of GBI. Eligible poverty‐related outcomes were classified into categories and sub‐categories, to facilitate the synthesis of the individual findings. Because most of the included studies analyzed experiments conducted by other researchers, it was necessary to divide our analysis according to the "experiment" stage (i.e. design, recruitment, intervention, data collection) and the "study" stage (data analysis and reporting of results). Main Results: Our searches yielded 24,476 records from databases and 80 from other sources. After screening by title and abstract, the full texts of 294 potentially eligible articles were retrieved and screened, resulting in 27 included studies on 10 experiments. Eight of the experiments were RCTs, one included both an RCT site and a "saturation" site, and one used a repeated cross‐sectional design. The duration ranged from one to 5 years. The control groups in all 10 experiments received "usual care" (i.e. no GBI intervention). The total number of participants was unknown because some of the studies did not report exact sample sizes. Of the studies that did, the smallest had 138 participants and the largest had 8019. The risk of bias assessments found "some concerns" for at least one domain in all 27 studies and "high risk" for at least one domain in 25 studies. The risk of bias was assessed as high in 21 studies due to attrition and in 22 studies due to analysis and reporting bias. To compare the interventions, we developed a classification framework of five GBI types, four of which were implemented in the experiments, and one that is used in new experiments now underway. The included studies reported 176 poverty‐related outcomes, including one pre‐defined primary outcome: food insecurity. The second primary outcome (poverty level assessed using official, national, or international measures) was not reported in any of the included studies. We classified the reported outcomes into seven categories: food insecurity (as a category), economic/material, physical health, psychological/mental health, social, educational, and individual choice/agency. Food insecurity was reported in two studies, both showing improvements (SMD = −0.57, 95% CI: −0.65 to −0.49, and SMD = −0.41, 95% CI: −0.57 to −0.26) which were not pooled because of different study designs. We conducted meta‐analyses on four secondary outcomes that were reported in more than one study: subjective financial well‐being, self‐rated overall physical health, self‐rated life satisfaction, and self‐rated mental distress. Improvements were reported, except for overall physical health or if the intervention was similar to existing social assistance. The results for the remaining 170 outcomes, each reported in only one study, were summarized in tables by category and subcategory. Adverse effects were reported in some studies, but only for specific subgroups of participants, and not consistently, so these results may have been due to chance. Authors' Conclusions: The results of the included studies were difficult to synthesize because of the heterogeneity in the reported outcomes. This was due in part to poverty being multidimensional, so outcomes covered various aspects of life (economic, social, psychological, educational, agency, mental and physical health). Evidence from future studies would be easier to assess if outcomes were measured using more common, validated instruments. Based on our analysis of the included studies, a supplemental type of GBI (provided along with existing programs) may be effective in alleviating poverty‐related outcomes. This approach may also be safer than a wholesale reform of existing social assistance approaches, which could have unintended consequences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To systematically review the prevalence of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) among Black children and adolescents compared to White, Latino and Asian children and adolescents. Peer-reviewed articles were identified in seven databases and included if they reported prevalence of ADHD among Black children and adolescents living in a minority context and compared rates to at least one of White, Latino or Asian samples. A total of 7050 articles were retrieved and 155 articles were subjected to full evaluation. Twenty-three studies representing 26 independent samples were included. The pooled sample size was n = 218,445 (k = 26), n = 835,505 (k = 25), n = 493,417 (k = 24), and n = 66,413 (k = 7) of Black, White, Latino, and Asian participants, respectively. Pooled prevalence rate of ADHD was 15.9% (95%CI 11.6% – 20.7%) among Black children and adolescents, 16.6% (95%CI 11.6% – 22.2%) among Whites, 10.1% (95%CI 6.9% – 13.8%) among Latinos and 12.4% (95%CI 1.4% – 31.8%) among Asians. There was no significant difference in prevalence between ethnic groups, whereas both Black and White children and adolescents had marginally statistically significant higher prevalence than Asians. The results of a meta-regression analysis showed no moderating effects of the type of sample and the year of publication of studies. A significant publication bias was observed, suggesting that other moderators were not identified in the present systematic review. In contrast to the assertion in the DSM-5 that clinical identification among Black children and adolescents is lower than among White children and adolescents, the present meta-analysis suggests similar rates of ADHD among these two groups. The importance of considering cultural appropriateness of assessment tools and processes is emphasized. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Psychiatry is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: In Canada, two of five individuals will be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetime and one in four will die from this disease. Given the disparities observed in health research among Black individuals, we conducted a scoping review to analyze the state of cancer research in Canadian Black communities regarding prevalence, incidence, screening, mortality, and related factors to observe advances and identify gaps and disparities. Methods: A comprehensive search strategy was developed and executed in December 2021 across 10 databases (e.g., Embase). Of 3451 studies generated by the search, 19 were retained for extraction and included in this study. Results: Studies were focused on a variety of cancer types among Black individuals including anal, breast, cervical, colorectal, gastric, lung, and prostate cancers. They included data on incidence, stage of cancer at diagnosis, type of care received, diagnostic interval length, and screening. A few studies also demonstrated racial disparities among Black individuals. This research reveals disparities in screening, incidence, and quality of care among Black individuals in Canada. Conclusions: Given the gaps observed in cancer studies among Black individuals, federal and provincial governments and universities should consider creating special funds to generate research on this important health issue. Plain language summary: Important gaps were observed on research on cancer among Black communities in Canada. Studies included in the scoping review highlights disparities in screening, incidence, and quality of care among Black individuals in Canada. Important gaps were observed on research on cancer among Black communities in Canada. Studies included in this scoping review highlight disparities in screening, incidence, and quality of care among Black individuals in Canada. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This systematic review and meta‐analysis examined the prevalence and factors associated with vaccine hesitancy and vaccine unwillingness in Canada. Eleven databases were searched in March 2022. The pooled prevalence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) vaccine hesitancy and unwillingness was estimated. Subgroup analyses and meta‐regressions were performed. Out of 667 studies screened, 86 full‐text articles were reviewed, and 30 were included in the systematic review. Twenty‐four articles were included in the meta‐analysis; 12 for the pooled prevalence of vaccine hesitancy (42.3% [95% CI, 33.7%–51.0%]) and 12 for vaccine unwillingness (20.1% [95% CI, 15.2%−24.9%]). Vaccine hesitancy was higher in females (18.3% [95% CI, 12.4%−24.2%]) than males (13.9% [95% CI, 9.0%−18.8%]), and in rural (16.3% [95% CI, 12.9%−19.7%]) versus urban areas (14.1% [95%CI, 9.9%−18.3%]). Vaccine unwillingness was higher in females (19.9% [95% CI, 11.0%−24.8%]) compared with males (13.6% [95% CI, 8.0%−19.2%]), non‐White individuals (21.7% [95% CI, 16.2%−27.3%]) than White individuals (14.8% [95% CI, 11.0%−18.5%]), and secondary or less (24.2% [95% CI, 18.8%−29.6%]) versus postsecondary education (15.9% [95% CI, 11.6%−20.2%]). Factors related to racial disparities, gender, education level, and age are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This meta-analysis examined group-design studies investigating the effectiveness of Daily Behavior Report Cards (DBRC) as a school-based intervention to manage the classroom behavior of students with ADHD. Methods: A search of three article databases (PsycINFO, ERIC and Medline) identified seven group design evaluations of DBRC interventions. This meta-analysis included a total of 272 participants, with an average age of 7.9 years old. Three of the studies compared a control group to a treatment group with randomized group assignment, one study compared a control group to three treatment groups, two studies compared pre-and post-treatment scores in the same group, and one study compared pre-and post-treatment results of two intervention groups without random assignment. Dependent measures for these studies were teacher ratings (n = 5) and systematic direct observation of student academic and social behaviour (n = 2). Standardized mean differences (Hedge's g) were calculated to obtain a pooled effect size using fixed effects. Results: DBRCs were associated with reductions teacher-rated ADHD symptoms, with a Hedge's g of 0.36 (95% CI: 0.12-0.60, z=2.93, p ≤ .005) with low heterogeneity (Q-value: 2.40, I2 = 0.00). This result excluded two studies that used observational coding instead of standardized tests to evaluate the effects of the intervention. A moderator analysis indicated that the effect size for systematic direct observation was large (Hedge's G = 1.05[95% CI: 0.66-1.44, z=5.25, p ≤ .00]), with very high heterogeneity (Q-value: 46.34, I2: 93.53). A second moderator analysis found differences in the effects of DBRCs for comorbid externalizing symptoms with an overall effect size of 0.34 (95%CI: -0.04-0.72, z=1.76 p =0.08) with high heterogeneity (Q-value: 3.98, I2: 74.85). Conclusions: DBRCs effectively reduce the frequency and severity of ADHD symptoms in classroom settings. Additionally, they have a significant effect on co-occuring externalizing behaviors. It appears that systematic direct observation may be a more sensitive measure of treatment effects compared to teacher ratings of ADHD symptoms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Older adults with subjective cognitive decline (SCD) have a higher risk of developing future cognitive decline than those without SCD. However, the association between SCD and objective cognitive performance remains unclear. This PRISMA 2020‐compliant systematic review aims to provide a qualitative assessment of the longitudinal and cross‐sectional relationship between SCD and objective cognitive performance in different cognitive domains, in neuropsychologically healthy, community‐dwelling older adults (average age of 55 or older). To identify pertinent studies, a comprehensive search was conducted from seven databases. The National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross‐Sectional Studies was used to assess the quality of included studies. Inclusion criteria were met by 167 studies, which were full‐text and published between 1 January 1982 and 16 May 2023 (inclusive) in the languages of English, French, or Spanish and presenting data on objective cognitive performance in older adults with SCD. Overall, we found that SCD was associated with poorer objective cognitive performance on measures of global cognition and memory longitudinally compared to non‐SCD status, but this association was inconsistent in cross‐sectional studies. This association became stronger with the use of continuous measures of SCD as opposed to dichotomous measures. Additionally, results highlight the known lack of consistency in SCD assessment among studies and comparatively small number of longitudinal studies in SCD research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]