IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0031360.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does Consideration and Assessment of Effects on Health Equity Affect the Conclusions of Systematic Reviews? A Methodology Study

Author

Listed:
  • Vivian Welch
  • Mark Petticrew
  • Erin Ueffing
  • Maria Benkhalti Jandu
  • Kevin Brand
  • Bharbhoor Dhaliwal
  • Elizabeth Kristjansson
  • Janet Smylie
  • George Anthony Wells
  • Peter Tugwell

Abstract

Introduction: Tackling health inequities both within and between countries remains high on the agenda of international organizations including the World Health Organization and local, regional and national governments. Systematic reviews can be a useful tool to assess effects on equity in health status because they include studies conducted in a variety of settings and populations. This study aims to describe the extent to which the impacts of health interventions on equity in health status are considered in systematic reviews, describe methods used, and assess the implications of their equity related findings for policy, practice and research. Methods: We conducted a methodology study of equity assessment in systematic reviews. Two independent reviewers extracted information on the reporting and analysis of impacts of health interventions on equity in health status in a group of 300 systematic reviews collected from all systematic reviews indexed in one month of MEDLINE, using a pre-tested data collection form. Any differences in data extraction were resolved by discussion. Results: Of the 300 systematic reviews, 224 assessed the effectiveness of interventions on health outcomes. Of these 224 reviews, 29 systematic reviews assessed effects on equity in health status using subgroup analysis or targeted analyses of vulnerable populations. Of these, seven conducted subgroup analyses related to health equity which were reported in insufficient detail to judge their credibility. Of these 29 reviews, 18 described implications for policy and practice based on assessment of effects on health equity. Conclusion: The quality and completeness of reporting should be enhanced as a priority, because without this policymakers and practitioners will continue lack the evidence base they need to inform decision-making about health inequity. Furthermore, there is a need to develop methods to systematically consider impacts on equity in health status that is currently lacking in systematic reviews.

Suggested Citation

  • Vivian Welch & Mark Petticrew & Erin Ueffing & Maria Benkhalti Jandu & Kevin Brand & Bharbhoor Dhaliwal & Elizabeth Kristjansson & Janet Smylie & George Anthony Wells & Peter Tugwell, 2012. "Does Consideration and Assessment of Effects on Health Equity Affect the Conclusions of Systematic Reviews? A Methodology Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(3), pages 1-6, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0031360
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0031360
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0031360
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0031360&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0031360?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Moher & Jennifer Tetzlaff & Andrea C Tricco & Margaret Sampson & Douglas G Altman, 2007. "Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(3), pages 1-9, March.
    2. Sandra Jo Wilson & Mark W. Lipsey, 2006. "The Effects of School‐Based Social Information Processing Interventions on Aggressive Behavior, Part I: Universal Programs," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(1), pages 1-42.
    3. William Shadish David Myers, 2004. "Campbell Collaboration Research Design Policy Brief," Mathematica Policy Research Reports 05f02566dfa14264954aedc6b, Mathematica Policy Research.
    4. repec:mpr:mprres:4684 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Sandra Jo Wilson & Mark W. Lipsey, 2006. "The Effects of School‐Based Social Information Processing Interventions on Aggressive Behavior, Part II: Selected/Indicated Pull‐Out Programs," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(1), pages 1-37.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ashrita Saran & Howard White & Kerry Albright & Jill Adona, 2020. "Mega‐map of systematic reviews and evidence and gap maps on the interventions to improve child well‐being in low‐ and middle‐income countries," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), December.
    2. Yul-mai Song & Sunah Kim, 2022. "Effects of a Social and Emotional Competence Enhancement Program for Adolescents Who Bully: A Quasi-Experimental Design," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(12), pages 1-13, June.
    3. Anna Sorrentino & Anna Costanza Baldry & David P. Farrington, 2018. "The Efficacy of the Tabby Improved Prevention and Intervention Program in Reducing Cyberbullying and Cybervictimization among Students," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-14, November.
    4. Neal R. Haddaway & Matthew J. Page & Chris C. Pritchard & Luke A. McGuinness, 2022. "PRISMA2020: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020‐compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(2), June.
    5. Giuseppe La Torre & Remigio Bova & Rosario Andrea Cocchiara & Cristina Sestili & Anna Tagliaferri & Simona Maggiacomo & Camilla Foschi & William Zomparelli & Maria Vittoria Manai & David Shaholli & Va, 2023. "What Are the Determinants of the Quality of Systematic Reviews in the International Journals of Occupational Medicine? A Methodological Study Review of Published Literature," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(2), pages 1-12, January.
    6. Nikolaos Pandis & Padhraig S Fleming & Helen Worthington & Kerry Dwan & Georgia Salanti, 2015. "Discrepancies in Outcome Reporting Exist Between Protocols and Published Oral Health Cochrane Systematic Reviews," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(9), pages 1-10, September.
    7. Mogens N. Christoffersen & Jacqueline Corcoran & Diane DePanfilis & Claire Daining, 2009. "PROTOCOL: Cognitive‐behavioural therapy for parents who have physically abused their children," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(1), pages 1-20.
    8. João Carlos Belloti & Aldo Okamura & Jordana Scheeren & Flávio Faloppa & Vinícius Ynoe de Moraes, 2019. "A systematic review of the quality of distal radius systematic reviews: Methodology and reporting assessment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-12, January.
    9. Hansen, Henrik & Trifkovic, Neda, 2013. "Systematic Reviews: Questions, Methods and Usage," MPRA Paper 47993, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Jamie J Kirkham & Doug G Altman & Paula R Williamson, 2010. "Bias Due to Changes in Specified Outcomes during the Systematic Review Process," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(3), pages 1-5, March.
    11. Andrea C Tricco & Jamie Brehaut & Maggie H Chen & David Moher, 2008. "Following 411 Cochrane Protocols to Completion: A Retrospective Cohort Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 3(11), pages 1-6, November.
    12. repec:wly:camsys:v:10:y:2014:i:1:p:1-46:a is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Hugh Waddington & Ada Sonnenfeld & Juliette Finetti & Marie Gaarder & Denny John & Jennifer Stevenson, 2019. "Citizen engagement in public services in low‐ and middle‐income countries: A mixed‐methods systematic review of participation, inclusion, transparency and accountability (PITA) initiatives," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(1-2), June.
    14. Yali Liu & Rui Zhang & Jiao Huang & Xu Zhao & Danlu Liu & Wanting Sun & Yuefen Mai & Peng Zhang & Yajun Wang & Hua Cao & Ke hu Yang, 2014. "Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses of Acupuncture," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-7, November.
    15. Rockers, Peter C. & Røttingen, John-Arne & Shemilt, Ian & Tugwell, Peter & Bärnighausen, Till, 2015. "Inclusion of quasi-experimental studies in systematic reviews of health systems research," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(4), pages 511-521.
    16. Matthew J Page & Joanne E McKenzie & Patrick M Bossuyt & Isabelle Boutron & Tammy C Hoffmann & Cynthia D Mulrow & Larissa Shamseer & Jennifer M Tetzlaff & Elie A Akl & Sue E Brennan & Roger Chou & Jul, 2021. "The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(3), pages 1-15, March.
    17. Lucy Turner & James Galipeau & Chantelle Garritty & Eric Manheimer & L Susan Wieland & Fatemeh Yazdi & David Moher, 2013. "An Evaluation of Epidemiological and Reporting Characteristics of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) Systematic Reviews (SRs)," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(1), pages 1-11, January.
    18. Osnat Wine & Alvaro Osornio Vargas & Sandra M. Campbell & Vahid Hosseini & Charles Robert Koch & Mahdi Shahbakhti, 2022. "Cold Climate Impact on Air-Pollution-Related Health Outcomes: A Scoping Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-17, January.
    19. Hugh Waddington & Birte Snilstveit & Jorge Garcia Hombrados & Martina Vojtkova & Jock Anderson & Howard White, 2012. "PROTOCOL: Farmer Field Schools for Improving Farming Practices and Farmer Outcomes in Low‐ and Middle‐income Countries: A Systematic Review," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(1), pages 1-48.
    20. Jana Schellinger & Kerry Sewell & Jamie E Bloss & Tristan Ebron & Carrie Forbes, 2021. "The effect of librarian involvement on the quality of systematic reviews in dental medicine," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(9), pages 1-16, September.
    21. Lisa Hartling & Michele P Hamm & Ricardo M Fernandes & Donna M Dryden & Ben Vandermeer, 2014. "Quantifying Bias in Randomized Controlled Trials in Child Health: A Meta-Epidemiological Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(2), pages 1-6, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0031360. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.