Manosila Yoganathan

The effectiveness of evidence summaries on health policymakers and health system managers use of evidence from systematic reviews: a systematic review

BackgroundSystematic reviews are important for decision makers. They offer many potential benefits but are often written in technical language, are too long, and do not contain contextual details which make them hard to use for decision-making. There are many organizations that develop and disseminate derivative products, such as evidence summaries, from systematic reviews for different populations or subsets of decision makers. This systematic review aimed to (1) assess the effectiveness of evidence summaries on policymakers’ use of the evidence and (2) identify the most effective summary components for increasing policymakers’ use of the evidence. We present an overview of the available evidence on systematic review derivative products.MethodsWe included studies of policymakers at all levels as well as health system managers. We included studies examining any type of “evidence summary,” “policy brief,” or other products derived from systematic reviews that presented evidence in a summarized form. The primary outcomes were the (1) use of systematic review summaries in decision-making (e.g., self-reported use of the evidence in policymaking and decision-making) and (2) policymakers’ understanding, knowledge, and/or beliefs (e.g., changes in knowledge scores about the topic included in the summary). We also assessed perceived relevance, credibility, usefulness, understandability, and desirability (e.g., format) of the summaries.ResultsOur database search combined with our gray literature search yielded 10,113 references after removal of duplicates. From these, 54 were reviewed in full text, and we included six studies (reported in seven papers) as well as protocols from two ongoing studies. Two studies assessed the use of evidence summaries in decision-making and found little to no difference in effect. There was also little to no difference in effect for knowledge, understanding or beliefs (four studies), and perceived usefulness or usability (three studies). Summary of findings tables and graded entry summaries were perceived as slightly easier to understand compared to complete systematic reviews. Two studies assessed formatting changes and found that for summary of findings tables, certain elements, such as reporting study event rates and absolute differences, were preferred as well as avoiding the use of footnotes.ConclusionsEvidence summaries are likely easier to understand than complete systematic reviews. However, their ability to increase the use of systematic review evidence in policymaking is unclear.Trial registrationThe protocol was published in the journal Systematic Reviews (2015;4:122)

Reporting of sex and gender in randomized controlled trials in Canada: a cross-sectional methods study

BackgroundAccurate reporting on sex and gender in health research is integral to ensuring that health interventions are safe and effective. In Canada and internationally, governments, research organizations, journal editors, and health agencies have called for more inclusive research, provision of sex-disaggregated data, and the integration of sex and gender analysis throughout the research process. Sex and gender analysis is generally defined as an approach for considering how and why different subpopulations (e.g., of diverse genders, ages, and social locations) may experience health conditions and interventions in different or similar ways.The objective of this study was to assess the extent and nature of reporting about sex and/or gender, including whether sex and gender analysis (SGA) was carried out in a sample of Canadian randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with human participants.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE from 01 January 2013 to 23 July 2014 using a validated filter for identification of RCTs, combined with terms related to Canada. Two reviewers screened the search results to identify the first 100 RCTs that were either identified in the trial publication as funded by a Canadian organization or which had a first or last author based in Canada. Data were independently extracted by two people from 10% of the RCTs during an initial training period; once agreement was reached on this sample, the remainder of the data extraction was completed by one person and verified by a second.ResultsThe search yielded 1433 records. We screened 256 records to identify 100 RCTs which met our eligibility criteria. The median sample size of the RCTs was 107 participants (range 12–6085). While 98% of studies described the demographic composition of their participants by sex, only 6% conducted a subgroup analysis across sex and 4% reported sex-disaggregated data. No article defined “sex” and/or “gender.” No publication carried out a comprehensive sex and gender analysis.ConclusionsFindings highlight poor uptake of sex and gender considerations in the Canadian RCT context and underscore the need for better articulated guidance on sex and gender analysis to improve reporting of evidence, inform policy development, and guide future research.

Considerations and guidance in designing equity-relevant clinical trials

Health research has documented disparities in health and health outcomes within and between populations. When these disparities are unfair and avoidable they may be referred to as health inequities. Few trials attend to factors related to health inequities, and there is limited understanding about how to build consideration of health inequities into trials. Due consideration of health inequities is important to inform the design, conduct and reporting of trials so that research can build evidence to more effectively address health inequities and importantly, ensure that inequities are not aggravated. In this paper, we discuss approaches to integrating health equity-considerations in randomized trials by using the PROGRESS Plus framework (Place of residence, Race/ethnicity/culture/language, Occupation, Gender, Religion, Education, Socio-economic status, Social capital and “Plus” that includes other context specific factors) and cover: (i) formulation of research questions, (ii) two specific scenarios relevant to trials about health equity and (iii) describe how the PROGRESS Plus characteristics may influence trial design, conduct and analyses. This guidance is intended to support trialists designing equity-relevant trials and lead to better design, conduct, analyses and reporting, by addressing two main issues: how to avoid aggravating inequity among research participants and how to produce information that is useful to decision-makers who are concerned with health inequities.

When is a randomised controlled trial health equity relevant? Development and validation of a conceptual framework

Background Randomised controlled trials can provide evidence relevant to assessing the equity impact of an intervention, but such information is often poorly reported. We describe a conceptual framework to identify health equity-relevant randomised trials with the aim of improving the design and reporting of such trials. Methods An interdisciplinary and international research team engaged in an iterative consensus building process to develop and refine the conceptual framework via face-to-face meetings, teleconferences and email correspondence, including findings from a validation exercise whereby two independent reviewers used the emerging framework to classify a sample of randomised trials. Results A randomised trial can usefully be classified as ‘health equity relevant’ if it assesses the effects of an intervention on the health or its determinants of either individuals or a population who experience ill health due to disadvantage defined across one or more social determinants of health. Health equity-relevant randomised trials can either exclusively focus on a single population or collect data potentially useful for assessing differential effects of the intervention across multiple populations experiencing different levels or types of social disadvantage. Trials that are not classified as ‘health equity relevant’ may nevertheless provide information that is indirectly relevant to assessing equity impact, including information about individual level variation unrelated to social disadvantage and potentially useful in secondary modelling studies. Conclusion The conceptual framework may be used to design and report randomised trials. The framework could also be used for other study designs to contribute to the evidence base for improved health equity.

How health equity is reported and analyzed in randomized trials

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Methodology). The objectives are as follows: We aim to assess methods used to assess health equity considerations, and how they are reported, in studies that have assessed cohorts of RCTs.

Adult-Onset Type 1 Diabetes: A Qualitative Study of Decision-Making Needs

INTRODUCTION Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune disease resulting from insulin deficiency and must be carefully managed to prevent serious health complications. Diabetes education and management strategies usually focus on meeting the decision-making needs of children and their families, but little is known about the decisional needs of people with adult-onset type 1 diabetes. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to explore the diabetes-related decision-making needs of people diagnosed with adult-onset type 1 diabetes. METHODS An interpretive descriptive qualitative study was conducted. Participants who self-identified as having adult-onset type 1 diabetes were interviewed using a semistructured interview guide. Transcripts were coded to identify needs, supports and barriers using thematic analysis. RESULTS Participating in the study were 8 adults (2 men, 6 women), ages 33 to 57, with type 1 diabetes for durations of 1 to 20 or more years. Their decision-making needs are summarized in 6 broad themes: 1) people diagnosed with type 1 diabetes are launched into a process of decision-making; 2) being diagnosed with type 1 diabetes means you will always have to make decisions; 3) knowledge is crucial; 4) personal preferences matter; 5) support is critical for decisions about self-care in type 1 diabetes; 6) living with type 1 diabetes means making very individualized decisions about daily life. CONCLUSIONS The findings describe the sudden and ubiquitous nature of type 1 diabetes decision-making and the need to tailor approaches for making care decisions in type 1 diabetes. People diagnosed with adult-onset type 1 diabetes require access to reliable information, support and opportunities for participation in decision-making.

Sex/gender reporting and analysis in Campbell and Cochrane systematic reviews: a cross-sectional methods study

BackgroundThe importance of sex and gender considerations in research is being increasingly recognized. Evidence indicates that sex and gender can influence intervention effectiveness. We assessed the extent to which sex/gender is reported and analyzed in Campbell and Cochrane systematic reviews.MethodsWe screened all the systematic reviews in the Campbell Library (n = 137) and a sample of systematic reviews from 2016 to 2017 in the Cochrane Library (n = 674). We documented the frequency of sex/gender terms used in each section of the reviews.ResultsWe excluded 5 Cochrane reviews because they were withdrawn or published and updated within the same time period as well as 4 Campbell reviews and 114 Cochrane reviews which only included studies focused on a single sex. Our analysis includes 133 Campbell reviews and 555 Cochrane reviews. We assessed reporting of sex/gender considerations for each section of the systematic review (Abstract, Background, Methods, Results, Discussion). In the methods section, 83% of Cochrane reviews (95% CI 80–86%) and 51% of Campbell reviews (95% CI 42–59%) reported on sex/gender. In the results section, less than 30% of reviews reported on sex/gender. Of these, 37% (95% CI 29–45%) of Campbell and 75% (95% CI 68–82%) of Cochrane reviews provided a descriptive report of sex/gender and 63% (95% CI 55–71%) of Campbell reviews and 25% (95% CI 18–32%) of Cochrane reviews reported analytic approaches for exploring sex/gender, such as subgroup analyses, exploring heterogeneity, or presenting disaggregated data by sex/gender.ConclusionOur study indicates that sex/gender reporting in Campbell and Cochrane reviews is inadequate.

Engaging knowledge users in development of the CONSORT-Equity 2017 reporting guideline: a qualitative study using in-depth interviews

BackgroundRandomized controlled trials (“randomized trials”) can provide evidence to assess the equity impact of an intervention. Decision makers need to know about equity impacts of healthcare interventions so that people get healthcare that is best for them. To better understand the equity impacts of healthcare interventions, a range of people who were potentially the ultimate users of research results were involved in a six-phase project to extend the CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials Statement for health equity (“CONSORT-Equity 2017”). We identified these “knowledge users” as: patients and healthcare researchers, decision makers and providers. This paper reports on one project phase: specifically, a qualitative study designed to integrate the expertise of knowledge users. The experiences and perspectives of knowledge users provided many insights about the reporting of health equity issues in randomized trials. This paper describes key informant interviews with knowledge users that contribute to a better understanding of the effects of an intervention on health equity. Additionally, the paper shows how these insights were used to develop CONSORT-Equity 2017.MethodsA qualitative study that used the framework analysis method was conducted in collaboration with an international study executive and advisory board team. In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of key informants who: consider the research ethics of, fund, conduct, participate in, publish, or use research evidence generated in randomized trials. Transcripts were coded and analyzed using the seven-stage framework analysis method, and data reported to reflect knowledge user suggestions to develop CONSORT-Equity 2017.ResultsThirteen key informants, of which three were patients, chose to participate in interviews. Seven themes emerged: “Differentiate the type of trial”, “Prompts for health equity”, “Ethics matter”, “Describe unique research strategies”, “Clarity of reporting”, “Implications of equity for sampling and analysis”, “Think beyond the immediate trial”. The interviews provided direction for the extension of 16 CONSORT-Equity 2017 items.ConclusionsKey informant interviews were used to identify new concepts that were not generated in our other studies and to develop CONSORT-Equity 2017. We encourage the use of key informant interviews in guideline development to obtain and include the real-life expertise of knowledge users.