scholarly journals Impact of H1N1 on socially disadvantaged populations: summary of a systematic review

2013 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 54-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea C. Tricco ◽  
Erin Lillie ◽  
Charlene Soobiah ◽  
Laure Perrier ◽  
Sharon E. Straus
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Disadvantaged Populations ◽  
Socially Disadvantaged

scholarly journals A Systematic Review of Interventions to Improve Diabetes Care in Socially Disadvantaged Populations

Diabetes Care ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 29 (7) ◽  
pp. 1675-1688 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. H. Glazier ◽  
J. Bajcar ◽  
N. R. Kennie ◽  
K. Willson
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Diabetes Care ◽  
Disadvantaged Populations ◽  
Socially Disadvantaged ◽  
Improve Diabetes Care

scholarly journals Impact of H1N1 on Socially Disadvantaged Populations: Systematic Review

PLoS ONE ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 7 (6) ◽  
pp. e39437 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea C. Tricco ◽  
Erin Lillie ◽  
Charlene Soobiah ◽  
Laure Perrier ◽  
Sharon E. Straus
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Disadvantaged Populations ◽  
Socially Disadvantaged

scholarly journals A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Patient Decision Aids for Socially Disadvantaged Populations: Update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IDPAS)

2021 ◽  
pp. 0272989X2110203
Author(s):  
Renata W. Yen ◽  
Jenna Smith ◽  
Jaclyn Engel ◽  
Danielle Marie Muscat ◽  
Sian K. Smith ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Relative Risk ◽  
Health Inequalities ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Patient Decision Aids ◽  
Disadvantaged Populations ◽  
Socially Disadvantaged ◽  
Patient Decision ◽  
Intervention Trials

Background The effectiveness of patient decision aids (PtDAs) and other shared decision-making (SDM) interventions for socially disadvantaged populations has not been well studied. Purpose To assess whether PtDAs and other SDM interventions improve outcomes or decrease health inequalities among socially disadvantaged populations and determine the critical features of successful interventions. Data Sources MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane, PsycINFO, and Web of Science from inception to October 2019. Cochrane systematic reviews on PtDAs. Study Selection Randomized controlled trials of PtDAs and SDM interventions that included socially disadvantaged populations. Data Extraction Independent double data extraction using a standardized form and the Template for Intervention Description and Replication checklist. Data Synthesis Twenty-five PtDA and 13 other SDM intervention trials met our inclusion criteria. Compared with usual care, PtDAs improved knowledge (mean difference = 13.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 9.01, 18.82 [I2 = 96%]) and patient-clinician communication (relative risk = 1.62, 95% CI 1.42, 1.84 [I2 = 0%]). PtDAs reduced decisional conflict (mean difference = −9.59; 95% CI −18.94, −0.24 [I2 = 84%]) and the proportion undecided (relative risk = 0.39; 95% CI 0.28, 0.53 [I2 = 75%]). PtDAs did not affect anxiety (standardized mean difference = 0.02, 95% CI −0.22, 0.26 [I2 = 70%]). Only 1 trial looked at clinical outcomes (hemoglobin A1C). Five of the 12 PtDA studies that compared outcomes by disadvantaged standing found that outcomes improved more for socially disadvantaged participants. No evidence indicated which intervention characteristics were most effective. Results were similar for SDM intervention trials. Limitations Sixteen PtDA studies had an overall unclear risk of bias. Heterogeneity was high for most outcomes. Most studies only had short-term follow-up. Conclusions PtDAs led to better outcomes among socially disadvantaged populations but did not reduce health inequalities. We could not determine which intervention features were most effective. [Box: see text]

scholarly journals Do quality improvement initiatives for diabetes care address social inequities? Secondary analysis of a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. e018826 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacquie Boyang Lu ◽  
Kristin J Danko ◽  
Michael D Elfassy ◽  
Vivian Welch ◽  
Jeremy M Grimshaw ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Socioeconomic Status ◽  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Diabetes Care ◽  
Secondary Analysis ◽  
Place Of Residence ◽  
Disadvantaged Groups ◽  
Disadvantaged Populations ◽  
Patients With Diabetes ◽  
Race Ethnicity

BackgroundSocially disadvantaged populations carry a disproportionate burden of diabetes-related morbidity and mortality. There is an emerging interest in quality improvement (QI) strategies in the care of patients with diabetes, however, the effect of these interventions on disadvantaged groups remains unclear.ObjectiveThis is a secondary analysis of a systematic review that seeks to examine the extent of equity considerations in diabetes QI studies, specifically quantifying the proportion of studies that target interventions toward disadvantaged populations and conduct analyses on the impact of interventions on disadvantaged groups.Research design and methodsStudies were identified using Medline, HealthStar and the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care database. Randomised controlled trials assessing 12 QI strategies targeting health systems, healthcare professionals and/or patients for the management of adult outpatients with diabetes were eligible. The place of residence, race/ethnicity/culture/language, occupational status, gender/sexual identity, religious affiliations, education level, socioeconomic status, social capital, plus age, disability, sexual preferences and relationships (PROGRESS-Plus) framework was used to identify trials that focused on disadvantaged patient populations, to examine the types of equity-relevant factors that are being considered and to explore temporal trends in equity-relevant diabetes QI trials.ResultsOf the 278 trials that met the inclusion criteria, 95 trials had equity-relevant considerations. These include 64 targeted trials that focused on a disadvantaged population with the aim to improve the health status of that population and 31 general trials that undertook subgroup analyses to assess the extent to which their interventions may have had differential impacts on disadvantaged subgroups. Trials predominantly focused on race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status and place of residence as potential factors for disadvantage in patients receiving diabetes care.ConclusionsLess than one-third of diabetes QI trials included equity-relevant considerations, limiting the relevance and applicability of their data to disadvantaged populations. There is a need for better data collection, reporting, analysis and interventions on the social determinants of health that may influence the health outcomes of patients with diabetes.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42013005165.

scholarly journals Exploring the role of community engagement in improving the health of disadvantaged populations: a systematic review

2015 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 29842 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sheila Cyril ◽  
Ben J. Smith ◽  
Alphia Possamai-Inesedy ◽  
Andre M. N. Renzaho
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Community Engagement ◽  
Disadvantaged Populations

scholarly journals Enrollment, retention, and strategies for including disadvantaged populations in randomized controlled trials: a systematic review protocol

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Abigail LaPlante ◽  
Renata W. Yen ◽  
Talia Isaacs ◽  
Joanna Crocker ◽  
Zsofia Demjen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Recruitment Strategies ◽  
Disadvantaged Groups ◽  
Disadvantaged Populations ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
True Diversity

Abstract Background Many randomized controlled trials fail to reach their target sample size. When coupled with the omission and underrepresentation of disadvantaged groups in randomized controlled trials, many trials fail to obtain data that accurately represents the true diversity of their target population. Policies and practices have been implemented to increase representation of disadvantaged groups in many randomized controlled trials, with some trials specifically targeting such groups. To our knowledge, no systematic review has quantified the enrollment metrics and effectiveness of inclusion and retention strategies in randomized controlled trials focused on disadvantaged populations specifically. Methods We will conduct a systematic search across EMBASE, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and CINAHL as well as grey literature, conference proceedings, research monographs, and Google Scholar from inception onwards. We will include randomized controlled trials where at least 50% of enrolled participants are considered to be disadvantaged, as per the RCT authors’ definition and in line with our inclusion criteria. Two independent researchers per article will conduct preliminary title and abstract screening, subsequent full text review, and data extraction for the selected trials, with a third reviewer available to resolve conflicts. We will assess the quality of all included studies using specific criteria regarding data reporting, external validity, and internal validity. We will combine all selected studies and conduct a narrative synthesis to assess enrollment metrics. If there is sufficient homogeneity and sufficient trials comparing recruitment strategies within disadvantaged populations, we will conduct a random effects meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of strategies designed to maximize the inclusion of disadvantaged populations in randomized controlled trials. Discussion The findings of this systematic review will establish baseline recruitment and enrollment metrics of trials targeting disadvantaged populations to elucidate the scope of the challenge of recruiting such populations. We hope that our findings will promote future research on the distinct barriers that may prevent disadvantaged populations from participating in health intervention research, will encourage more trials exploring effective, tailored recruitment strategies, and will establish a foundation to track future progress in the recruitment of disadvantaged populations. Trial registrations PROSPERO ID: CRD42020152814

scholarly journals Smoking cessation programmes for women living in disadvantaged communities, “We Can Quit 2”: A systematic review protocol

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 10
Author(s):  
Emma Burke ◽  
Fiona Dobbie ◽  
Nadine Dougall ◽  
Mary Adebolu Oluwaseun ◽  
David Mockler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Smoking Cessation ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Experimental Studies ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Successful Implementation ◽  
Systematic Review Protocol ◽  
Socially Disadvantaged ◽  
Review Protocol

Tobacco use is the leading cause of preventable death in Ireland with almost 6,000 smokers dying each year from smoking-related diseases. Amongst younger Irish women, smoking rates are considerably higher in those from socially disadvantaged areas compared to women from affluent areas. Women from poorer areas also experience higher rates of lung cancer. To our knowledge, there are no peer reviewed published systematic reviews on the effectiveness of interventions tailored to reduce smoking rates in women from disadvantaged areas. This systematic review protocol will aim to examine the effectiveness of such interventions and to describe trial processes such as recruitment, follow-up and dropout prevention strategies, as well as barriers and enablers of successful implementation.    A systematic review will be conducted of peer-reviewed randomised controlled trials and associated process evaluations of smoking cessation interventions designed for women living in socially disadvantaged areas. If the search returns, less than five studies are review criteria will expand to include quasi-experimental studies. A number of databases of scholarly literature will be searched from inception using a detailed search strategy. Two independent reviewers will screen titles, abstracts and full-text articles to identify relevant studies using a pre-defined checklist based on PICOS. In the case of disagreement, a third reviewer will be consulted. The quality of included studies will be assessed using the ‘Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation’ (GRADE) criteria. Quantitative data will be extracted and, if comparable, will be assessed using meta-analysis. A narrative meta-synthesis of qualitative data will be conducted.   This review aims to synthesise information from relevant studies on smoking cessation interventions tailored for women from socially disadvantaged areas. The evidence obtained from studies and presented in this review will help guide future research in this area. Registration: This review will be registered with International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document