Prioritising Cochrane reviews to be updated with health equity focus
-
Published:2023-05-05
Issue:1
Volume:22
Page:
-
ISSN:1475-9276
-
Container-title:International Journal for Equity in Health
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Int J Equity Health
Author:
Tomlinson EveORCID, Pardo Pardo Jordi, Sivesind Torunn, Szeto Mindy D, Laughter Melissa, Foxlee Ruth, Brown Michael, Skoetz Nicole, Dellavalle Robert P, VA Franco Juan, Clarke Mike, Krentel Alison, Reveiz Ludovic, Saran Ashrita, Tse Frances, A Wells George, Boyle Robert, Hilgart Jennifer, Ndi Euphrasia Ebai-Atuh, Welch Vivian, Petkovic Jennifer, Tugwell Peter
Abstract
AbstractBackgroundThe prioritisation of updating published systematic reviews of interventions is vital to prevent research waste and ensure relevance to stakeholders. The consideration of health equity in reviews is also important to ensure interventions will not exacerbate the existing inequities of the disadvantaged if universally implemented. This study aimed to pilot a priority setting exercise based on systematic reviews of interventions published in the Cochrane Library, to identify and prioritise reviews to be updated with a focus on health equity.MethodsWe conducted a priority setting exercise with a group of 13 international stakeholders. We identified Cochrane reviews of interventions that showed a reduction in mortality, had at least one Summary of Findings table and that focused on one of 42 conditions with a high global burden of disease from the 2019 WHO Global Burden of Disease report. This included 21 conditions used as indicators of success of the United Nations Universal Health Coverage in attaining the Sustainable Development Goals. Stakeholders prioritised reviews that were relevant to disadvantaged populations, or to characteristics of potential disadvantage within the general population.ResultsAfter searching for Cochrane reviews of interventions within 42 conditions, we identified 359 reviews that assessed mortality and included at least one Summary of Findings table. These pertained to 29 of the 42 conditions; 13 priority conditions had no reviews with the outcome mortality. Reducing the list to only reviews showing a clinically important reduction in mortality left 33 reviews. Stakeholders ranked these reviews in order of priority to be updated with a focus on health equity.ConclusionsThis project developed and implemented a methodology to set priorities for updating systematic reviews spanning multiple health topics with a health equity focus. It prioritised reviews that reduce overall mortality, are relevant to disadvantaged populations, and focus on conditions with a high global burden of disease. This approach to the prioritisation of systematic reviews of interventions that reduce mortality provides a template that can be extended to reducing morbidity, and the combination of mortality and morbidity as represented in Disability-Adjusted Life Years and Quality-Adjusted Life Years.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health,Health Policy
Reference37 articles.
1. Schünemann HJ, Reinap M, Piggott T, Laidmäe E, Köhler K, Pōld M, et al. The ecosystem of health decision making: from fragmentation to synergy. The Lancet Public Health. 2022;7(4):e378–e90. 2. Concannon TW, Meissner P, Grunbaum JA, McElwee N, Guise J-M, Santa J, et al. A new taxonomy for stakeholder engagement in patient-centered outcomes research. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27(8):985–91. 3. Prioritization KTWGoE. Guidance note for Cochrane Groups to define systematic review priorities. 2019. 4. Welch VA, Petkovic J, Jull J, Hartling L, Klassen T, Kristjansson E et al. Equity and specific populations. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2019:433 – 49. 5. Marmot M, Friel S, Bell R, Houweling TA, Taylor S, Health CoSDo. Closing the gap in a generation: health equity through action on the social determinants of health. The lancet. 2008;372(9650):1661–9.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|