Bev Shea

Gender-based violence and HIV: relevance for HIV prevention in hyperendemic countries of southern Africa.

Gender-based violence (GBV) is common in southern Africa. Here we use GBV to include sexual and non-sexual physical violence, emotional abuse, and forms of child sexual abuse. A sizeable literature now links GBV and HIV infection.Sexual violence can lead to HIV infection directly, as trauma increases the risk of transmission. More importantly, GBV increases HIV risk indirectly. Victims of childhood sexual abuse are more likely to be HIV positive, and to have high risk behaviours.GBV perpetrators are at risk of HIV infection, as their victims have often been victimised before and have a high risk of infection. Including perpetrators and victims, perhaps one third of the southern African population is involved in the GBV-HIV dynamic.A randomised controlled trial of income enhancement and gender training reduced GBV and HIV risk behaviours, and a trial of a learning programme reported a non-significant reduction in HIV incidence and reduction of male risk behaviours (primary prevention). Interventions among survivors of GBV can reduce their HIV risk (secondary prevention). Various strategies can reduce spread of HIV from infected GBV survivors (tertiary prevention). Dealing with GBV could have an important effect on the HIV epidemic.A policy shift is necessary. HIV prevention policy should recognise the direct and indirect implications of GBV for HIV prevention, the importance of perpetrator dynamics, and that reduction of GBV should be part of HIV prevention programmes. Effective interventions are likely to include a structural component, and a GBV awareness component.

Evidence-based discussion increases childhood vaccination uptake : a randomised cluster controlled trial of knowledge translation in Pakistan

BackgroundChildhood vaccination rates are low in Lasbela, one of the poorest districts in Pakistans Balochistan province. This randomised cluster controlled trial tested the effect on uptake of informed discussion of vaccination costs and benefits, without relying on improved health services.MethodsFollowing a baseline survey of randomly selected representative census enumeration areas, a computer generated random number sequence assigned 18 intervention and 14 control clusters. The intervention comprised three structured discussions separately with male and female groups in each cluster. The first discussion shared findings about vaccine uptake from the baseline study; the second focussed on the costs and benefits of childhood vaccination; the third focussed on local action plans. Field teams encouraged the group participants to spread the dialogue to households in their communities. Both intervention and control clusters received a district-wide health promotion programme emphasizing household hygiene. Interviewers in the household surveys were blind of intervention status of different clusters. A follow-up survey after one year measured impact of the intervention on uptake of measles and full DPT vaccinations of children aged 12-23 months, as reported by the mother or caregiver.ResultsIn the follow-up survey, measles and DPT vaccination uptake among children aged 12-23 months (536 in intervention clusters, 422 in control clusters) was significantly higher in intervention than in control clusters, where uptake fell over the intervention period. Adjusting for baseline differences between intervention and control clusters with generalized estimating equations, the intervention doubled the odds of measles vaccination in the intervention communities (OR 2.20, 95% CI 1.24-3.88). It trebled the odds of full DPT vaccination (OR 3.36, 95% CI 2.03-5.56).ConclusionThe relatively low cost knowledge translation intervention significantly increased vaccine uptake, without relying on improved services, in a poor district with limited access to services. This could have wide relevance in increasing coverage in developing countries.Trial registrationISRCTN12421731.

Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews in Subfertility: A Comparison of Two Different Approaches

Background Systematic reviews are used widely to guide health care decisions. Several tools have been created to assess systematic review quality. The measurement tool for assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews known as the AMSTAR tool applies a yes/no score to eleven relevant domains of review methodology. This tool has been reworked so that each domain is scored based on a four point scale, producing R-AMSTAR. Methods and Findings We aimed to compare the AMSTAR and R-AMSTAR tools in assessing systematic reviews in the field of assisted reproduction for subfertility. All published systematic reviews on assisted reproductive technology, with the latest search for studies taking place from 2007–2011, were considered. Reviews that contained no included studies or considered diagnostic outcomes were excluded. Thirty each of Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews were randomly selected from a search of relevant databases. Both tools were then applied to all sixty reviews. The results were converted to percentage scores and all reviews graded and ranked based on this. AMSTAR produced a much wider variation in percentage scores and achieved higher inter-rater reliability than R-AMSTAR according to kappa statistics. The average rating for Cochrane reviews was consistent between the two tools (88.3% for R-AMSTAR versus 83.6% for AMSTAR) but inconsistent for non-Cochrane reviews (63.9% R-AMSTAR vs. 38.5% AMSTAR). In comparing the rankings generated between the two tools Cochrane reviews changed an average of 4.2 places, compared to 2.9 for non-Cochrane. Conclusion R-AMSTAR provided greater guidance in the assessment of domains and produced quantitative results. However, there were many problems with the construction of its criteria and AMSTAR was much easier to apply consistently. We recommend that AMSTAR incorporates the findings of this study and produces additional guidance for its application in order to improve its reliability and usefulness.

Is health equity considered in systematic reviews of the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group

OBJECTIVE To determine whether Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group (CMSG) systematic reviews and corresponding primary studies of rheumatoid arthritis interventions report and analyze the data needed to assess the effectiveness of interventions in reducing socioeconomic differences in health and/or improving the health of the poor. METHODS We selected all CMSG reviews on rheumatoid arthritis published since issue 1, 2003. Fourteen reviews were identified; 147 of the 156 primary studies included in these reviews were obtained and assessed. We extracted data on whether the dimensions place of residence, race/ethnicity/culture, occupation, gender, religion, education, socioeconomic status, and social capital and networks (PROGRESS) were reported or analyzed, and whether any interventions were aimed at disadvantaged or low- and middle-income country populations. RESULTS Among the dimensions of PROGRESS reported at baseline in 147 primary studies, gender (89%) was the most commonly reported, followed by education (25%) and race/ethnicity (18%). Less than 50% of the systematic reviews reported dimensions of PROGRESS even when they had been reported in the primary study. Of 147 primary studies, 6 (5%) were aimed specifically at disadvantaged populations; another 6 reported on effectiveness by at least 1 dimension of PROGRESS. CONCLUSION Primary studies of interventions for rheumatoid arthritis generally reported few variables necessary to answer questions about health inequalities. Most CMSG systematic reviews failed to assess those variables even when described in the primary studies. The Cochrane Health Equity Field welcomes the opportunity to provide guidance to systematic review authors on incorporating equity considerations into their reviews.

Updating the Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA) Core Domain Set: A Report from the PsA Workshop at OMERACT 2016

Objective. To include the patient perspective in accordance with the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Filter 2.0 in the updated Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA) Core Domain Set for randomized controlled trials (RCT) and longitudinal observational studies (LOS). Methods. At OMERACT 2016, research conducted to update the PsA Core Domain Set was presented and discussed in breakout groups. The updated PsA Core Domain Set was voted on and endorsed by OMERACT participants. Results. We conducted a systematic literature review of domains measured in PsA RCT and LOS, and identified 24 domains. We conducted 24 focus groups with 130 patients from 7 countries representing 5 continents to identify patient domains. We achieved consensus through 2 rounds of separate surveys with 50 patients and 75 physicians, and a nominal group technique meeting with 12 patients and 12 physicians. We conducted a workshop and breakout groups at OMERACT 2016 in which findings were presented and discussed. The updated PsA Core Domain Set endorsed with 90% agreement by OMERACT 2016 participants included musculoskeletal disease activity, skin disease activity, fatigue, pain, patient’s global assessment, physical function, health-related quality of life, and systemic inflammation, which were recommended for all RCT and LOS. These were important, but not required in all RCT and LOS: economic cost, emotional well-being, participation, and structural damage. Independence, sleep, stiffness, and treatment burden were on the research agenda. Conclusion. The updated PsA Core Domain Set was endorsed at OMERACT 2016. Next steps for the PsA working group include evaluation of PsA outcome measures and development of a PsA Core Outcome Measurement Set.

Methodological quality of systematic reviews in subfertility: a comparison of Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews in assisted reproductive technologies

STUDY QUESTION Are there differences in the methodological quality of Cochrane systematic reviews (CRs) and non-Cochrane systematic reviews (NCRs) of assisted reproductive technologies? SUMMARY ANSWER CRs on assisted reproduction are of higher methodological quality than similar reviews published in other journals. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY The quality of systematic reviews varies. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE AND DURATION This was a cross-sectional study of 30 CR and 30 NCR systematic reviews that were randomly selected from the eligible reviews identified from a literature search for the years 2007-2011. MATERIALS, SETTING AND METHODS We extracted data on the reporting and methodological characteristics of the included systematic reviews. We assessed the methodological quality of the reviews using the 11-domain Measurement Tool to Assess the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool and subsequently compared CR and NCR systematic reviews. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE The AMSTAR quality assessment found that CRs were superior to NCRs. For 10 of 11 AMSTAR domains, the requirements were met in >50% of CRs, but only 4 of 11 domains showed requirements being met in >50% of NCRs. The strengths of CRs are the a priori study design, comprehensive literature search, explicit lists of included and excluded studies and assessments of internal validity. Significant failings in the CRs were found in duplicate study selection and data extraction (67% meeting requirements), assessment for publication bias (53% meeting requirements) and reporting of conflicts of interest (47% meeting requirements). NCRs were more likely to contain methodological weaknesses as the majority of the domains showed <40% of reviews meeting requirements, e.g. a priori study design (17%), duplicate study selection and data extraction (17%), assessment of study quality (27%), study quality in the formulation of conclusions (23%) and reporting of conflict of interests (10%). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION The AMSTAR assessment can only judge what is reported by authors. Although two of the five authors are involved in the production of CRs, the risk of bias was reduced by not involving these authors in the assessment of the systematic review quality. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS Not all systematic reviews are equal. The reader needs to consider the quality of the systematic review when they consider the results and the conclusions of a systematic review. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) There are no conflicts with any commercial organization. Funding was provided for the students by the summer studentship programme of the Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences of the University of Auckland.

GRADE equity guidelines 3: considering health equity in GRADE guideline development: rating the certainty of synthesized evidence

Objectives The aim of this paper is to describe a conceptual framework for how to consider health equity in the Grading Recommendations Assessment and Development Evidence (GRADE) guideline development process. Study Design and Setting Consensus-based guidance developed by the GRADE working group members and other methodologists. Results We developed consensus-based guidance to help address health equity when rating the certainty of synthesized evidence (i.e., quality of evidence). When health inequity is determined to be a concern by stakeholders, we propose five methods for explicitly assessing health equity: (1) include health equity as an outcome; (2) consider patient-important outcomes relevant to health equity; (3) assess differences in the relative effect size of the treatment; (4) assess differences in baseline risk and the differing impacts on absolute effects; and (5) assess indirectness of evidence to disadvantaged populations and/or settings. Conclusion The most important priority for research on health inequity and guidelines is to identify and document examples where health equity has been considered explicitly in guidelines. Although there is a weak scientific evidence base for assessing health equity, this should not discourage the explicit consideration of how guidelines and recommendations affect the most vulnerable members of society.

Honoring Indigenous culture-as-intervention: Development and validity of the Native Wellness AssessmentTM

ABSTRACT There is a need for Indigenous-centered research to appraise culture’s role in wellness. Researchers described the development and validity of the Native Wellness Assessment (NWATM). The NWA has culture-as-intervention at its apex. Wellness, culture, and cultural intervention practices (CIPs) are explored from an Indigenous perspective. Indigenous clients completed matching self-report and observer versions of the NWA at three time points during addictions treatment. Statistically and psychometrically, the NWA content and structure performed well, demonstrating that culture is an effective and fair intervention for Indigenous peoples with addictions. The NWA can inform Indigenous health and community-based programs and policy.

Patient-reported pain is central to OMERACT rheumatology core measurement sets

This article provides evidence from the OMERACT (Outcome Measures in RheumAtology Clinical Trials) consensus conferences on patient-reported pain as a key outcome measure for most rheumatologic diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, osteoporosis, back disorders, ankylosing spondylitis, and lupus. These core sets have been endorsed internationally by the World Health Organization, the International League Against Rheumatism, the US National Osteoporosis Foundation, and the OsteoArthritis Research Society International (OARSI). Future research will assess methods for improving interpretability of pain outcomes for patients and clinicians. These methods include determining minimal clinically important differences and number needed to treat (NNT) for continuous outcomes such as pain.

Content and Face Validity and Feasibility of 5 Candidate Instruments for Psoriatic Arthritis Randomized Controlled Trials: The PsA OMERACT Core Set Workshop at the GRAPPA 2017 Annual Meeting.

The Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA)–Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA) Core Set working group is in the process of selecting core instruments for PsA clinical trials. During a 2-h workshop and breakout group discussions at the GRAPPA 2017 annual meeting in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, participants discussed the first set of candidate instruments to be taken through the OMERACT Filter 2.1 instrument selection process: 66/68 swollen/tender joint count (66/68JC), Spondyloarthritis Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) enthesitis index, patient’s global assessment (GRAPPA and OMERACT formulations), Health Assessment Questionnaire–Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease (PsAID) questionnaires 9 and 12, and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) Fatigue. Based on the assessment of domain match (content and face validity) and feasibility according to the OMERACT instrument selection criteria, the working group recommends continuing with appraisal of construct validity and discrimination for 66/68JC, SPARCC, PsAID 9 and 12, HAQ-DI, and FACIT-Fatigue. In addition, it recommends repeating the OMERACT Filter 2.1 process for patient global instruments because of insufficient votes. Additional sets of candidate instruments for the PsA core instrument set will be evaluated in a similar process.