Equity and specific populations

Welch, Vivian; Petkovic, Jennifer; Jull, Janet; Hartling, Lisa; Klassen, Terry P; Kristjansson, Elizabeth; Pardo, Jordi Pardo; Petticrew, Mark; Stott, David J.; Thomson, Denise; Ueffing, Erin; Williams, Katrina; Young, Camilla; Tugwell, Peter

doi:10.1002/9781119536604.ch16

Cited by 26 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…To assess the extent of incorporation of equity in policies, we utilized a guidance framework known as ‘PROGRESS-Plus’ [ 20 , 21 ]. This assessment was conducted in order to analyze the extent to which equity has been incorporated in PPE or masking policies and implementation of these policies around the globe.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…PROGRESS-plus equity framework is aimed at warranting the consideration of various health inequity inducing factors such as place of residence, race/ethnicity, occupation, gender, religion, education, socioeconomic status and personal characteristics when devising policies and/or guidelines. Additional details about the framework can be found elsewhere [ 20 , 21 ]. The data from included documents were analyzed to determine whether a study has considered equity component.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessment of health equity consideration in masking/PPE policies to contain COVID-19 using PROGRESS-plus framework: a systematic review

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of health equity consideration in masking/PPE policies to contain COVID-19 using PROGRESS-plus framework: a systematic review

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Employing an adapted PROGRESS-Plus framework (Welch et al, 2019), studies were also coded for their equity focus, including age (e.g., younger adolescents, older adolescents), caste, disability, education, gender and sex, occupation/employment status, place of residence, race, ethnicity, culture, language, religion, sexual orientation, social capital, socioeconomic status, and other. Equity factors are described as those that may stratify and drive variations in wellbeing outcomes (O'Neill et al, 2014).…”

Section: Step 3: Extracting Data From Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Coding schema developed using the PROGRESS-Plus approach are shown in Table A1. A map, outcome component, or study was considered to employ an equity approach (Welch et al, 2019;Snilstveit et al, 2016) if one of the following three criteria were employed: (a)…”

Section: Progress-plus Schema Definitions and Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adolescent Well-Being Gap Maps: What We Know and Opportunities for Future Research

Banati

Bacalso²

2021

JYD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Designing and delivering effective programs for adolescents and youth requires high-quality evidence that is easily available to decision makers. Yet while adolescence as a unique development period has gained policy attention in recent years, and there has been a growth in research, priorities for research investment remain unclear. This paper provides a panoramic view of adolescent development research to review what evidence exists and how evidence is mapped. Our approach interrogated studies mapped by evidence maps (including the subset evidence gap maps or EGMs). Our findings have implications for future directions of research on positive youth development (PYD) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs): The analysis showed that while most evidence maps exist in the adolescent protection, safety, and security domain, most studies focus on outcomes related to well-being and social and emotional health. There are gaps in demographic groupings and contexts studied. For example, while gender and sex inequities were the most prevalent in the studies identified, though seen in less than 1/5 of the studies analyzed, disability appears in only 3%. Housing, participation, and information communication technologies are researched relatively rarely. Rigorous research in conflict or humanitarian settings is absent. Additionally, while most impact evaluations are conducted in sub-Saharan Africa, followed by Latin America, the Middle East and North America were poorly represented regions. This article reflects on the state of the evidence, argues for a more thoughtful approach to equity in adolescent research, and calls for a stronger link between research, policy, and practice in LMICs.

show abstract

“…[1] Health inequalities have been defined as differences in health which are avoidable, remediable, and considered unjust. [2] A key strategy to reduce death and morbidity is to conduct randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine the effects of interventions for improving health. [3] However, RCTs are expensive and time-consuming, and there is necessarily a limit on the number and size of these types of study that can be carried out.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

State of the evidence: a survey of global disparities in clinical trials

Marshall

L’Esperence

Marshall

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Ideally, health conditions causing the greatest global disease burden should attract increased research attention. We conducted a comprehensive global study investigating the number of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published on different health conditions, and how this compares with the global disease burden that they impose. Methods We use machine learning to monitor PubMed daily, and find and analyse RCT reports. We assessed RCTs investigating the leading causes of morbidity and mortality from the Global Burden of Disease study. Using regression models, we compared numbers of actual RCTs in different health conditions to numbers predicted from their global disease burden (Disability-Adjusted Life Years [DALYs]). We investigated whether RCT numbers differed for conditions disproportionately affecting countries with lower socio-economic development. Results We estimate 463,000 articles describing RCTs (95% prediction interval 439,000-485,000) were published from 1990 to July 2020. RCTs recruited a median of 72 participants (interquartile range 32-195). 82% of RCTs were conducted by researchers in the top fifth of countries by socio-economic development. As DALYs increased for a particular health condition by 10%, the number of RCTs in the same year increased by 5% (3.2%-6.9%), but the association was weak (adjusted R2=0.13). Conditions disproportionately affecting countries with lower socio-economic development, including respiratory infections and tuberculosis (7 thousand RCTs below predicted) and enteric infections (10 thousand RCTs below predicted), appear relatively under-researched for their disease burden. Each 10% shift in DALYs towards countries with low and middle socio-economic development was associated with a 4% reduction in RCTs (3.7%-4.9%). These disparities have not changed substantially over time. Conclusion Research priorities are not well optimized to reduce the global burden of disease. Most RCTs are produced by highly developed countries, and the health needs of these countries have been, on average, favoured.

show abstract

Equity and specific populations

Cited by 26 publications

References 37 publications

Assessment of health equity consideration in masking/PPE policies to contain COVID-19 using PROGRESS-plus framework: a systematic review

Assessment of health equity consideration in masking/PPE policies to contain COVID-19 using PROGRESS-plus framework: a systematic review

Adolescent Well-Being Gap Maps: What We Know and Opportunities for Future Research

State of the evidence: a survey of global disparities in clinical trials

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About