Introduction Task shifting interventions have been implemented to improve health and address health inequities. Little is known about how inequity and vulnerability are defined and measured in research on task shifting. We conducted a systematic review to identify how inequity and vulnerability are identified, defined and measured in task shifting research from high-income countries. Methods and analysis We implemented a novel search process to identify programs of research concerning task shifting interventions in high-income countries. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and CENTRAL to identify articles published from 2004 to 2016. Each program of research incorporated a “parent” randomized trial and “child” publications or sub-studies arising from the same research group. Two investigators extracted (1) study details, (2) definitions and measures of health equity or population vulnerability, and (3) assessed the quality of the reporting and measurement of health equity and vulnerability using a five-point scale developed for this study. We summarized the findings using a narrative approach. Results Fifteen programs of research met inclusion criteria, involving 15 parent randomized trials and 62 child publications. Included programs of research were all undertaken in the United States, among Hispanic- (5/15), African- (2/15), and Korean-Americans (1/15), and low socioeconomic status (2/15), rural (2/15) and older adult populations (2/15). Task shifting interventions included community health workers, peers, and a variety of other non-professional and lay workers to address a range of non-communicable diseases. Some research provided robust analyses of the affected populations’ health inequities and demonstrated how a task shifting intervention redressed those concerns. Other studies provided no such definitions and measured only biomedical endpoints. Conclusion Included studies vary substantially in the definition and measurement of health inequity and vulnerability. A more precise theoretical and evaluative framework for task shifting is recommended to effectively achieve the goal of equitable health.

No abstract

IntroductionTask shifting interventions are intended to both deliver clinically effective treatments to reduce disease burden and address health inequities or population vulnerability. Little is known about how health equity and population vulnerability are defined and measured in research focused on task shifting. This systematic review will address the following questions: Among task shifting interventions in high-income settings that have been studied using randomised controlled trials or variants, how are health inequity or population vulnerability identified and defined? What methods and indicators are used to describe, characterise and measure the population’s baseline status and the intervention’s impacts on inequity and vulnerability?Methods and analysisStudies were identified through database searches (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Web of Science). Eligible studies will be randomised controlled trials published since 2004, conducted in high-income countries, concerning task shifting interventions to treat any disease, in any population that may face health disadvantage as defined by the PROGRESS-Plus framework (place of residence, race/ethnicity/culture/language, occupation, gender/sex, religion, social capital, socioeconomic position, age, disability, sexual orientation, other vulnerable groups). We will conduct independent and duplicate title and abstract screening, then identify related papers from the same programme of research through further database and manual searching. From each programme of research, we will extract study details, and definitions and measures of health equity or population vulnerability based on the PROGRESS-Plus framework. Two investigators will assess the quality of reporting and measurement related to health equity and vulnerability using a scale developed for this study. A narrative synthesis will highlight similarities and differences between the gathered studies and offer critical analyses and implications.Ethics and disseminationThis review does not involve primary data collection, does not constitute research on human subjects and is not subject to additional institutional ethics review or informed consent procedures. Dissemination will include open-access peer-reviewed publication and academic conference presentations.PROSPERO Registration Number CRD42017049959.

IntroductionThe Disease Control Priorities Project recommends emergency care training for laypersons in low-resource settings, but evidence for these interventions has not yet been systematically reviewed. This review will identify the individual and community health effects of educating laypeople to deliver prehospital emergency care interventions in low-resource settings.Methods and analysisThis systematic review addresses the following question: in underserviced populations and low-resource settings (P), does first aid or emergency care training or education for laypeople (I) confer any individual or community health benefit for emergency health conditions (O), in comparison with no training or other forms of education (C)? We restrict this review to studies reporting quantitatively measurable outcomes, and search 12 electronic bibliographic databases and grey literature sources. A team of expert content and methodology reviewers will conduct title and abstract screening and full-text review, using a custom-built online platform. Two investigators will independently extract methodological variables and outcomes related to patient-level morbidity and mortality and community-level effects on resilience or emergency care capacity. Two investigators will independently assess external validity, selection bias, performance bias, measurement bias, attrition bias and confounding. We will summarise the findings using a narrative approach to highlight similarities and differences between the gathered studies.Ethics and disseminationFormal ethical approval is not required.ResultsThe results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication and knowledge translation strategy.Review registration numberCRD42014009685.

Objective -To identify opportunities for health information professionals to participate in the ongoing development of the Semantic Web and to investigate the benefits promised by emerging semantic technologies. Methods -A search of two biomedical databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL), three information science databases (LISTA, LISA, and Library Literature), and Web-published literature retrieved articles on core Semantic Web concepts that relate to the practice of information professionals and the use of Semantic Web technologies in a health care context. Articles that focused solely on Semantic Web architecture and similar technology-focused literature were not selected for inclusion. A basic thematic analysis was performed to identify trends in the selected literature. Results -Five key areas of professional focus emerged as themes: ontology development, knowledge translation, information retrieval, scientific publishing, and resource classification and indexing. Discussion -Health information professionals have a role to play in the development of a powerful and nuanced biomedical Semantic Web. Rather than making traditional medical library positions obsolete, the Semantic Web could present new opportunities for information professionals within the five identified areas of professional focus. In turn, semantic technologies developed with the input of experienced health information professionals have the potential to transform the practice of these professionals, particularly within the five aforementioned areas.McArthur 84