PROGRESS-Plus Framework Research Articles

Evaluating Health Inequality in Five Caribbean Basin Countries Using EQ-5D-5L.

BackgroundEQ-5D-5L is a standardized health outcomes instrument that can be added to national surveys to measure inequality in health outcomes. The aim of this study was to produce baseline values of health inequality using EQ-5D-5L for five countries in the Caribbean Basin region based on national surveys in 2012–2014.MethodsThe EQ-5D-5L questionnaire was included in adult population surveys of Barbados, Belize, Colombia, Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago. EQ-5D-5L measures were calculated for demographic groups using stratifiers from the World Health Organization’s PROGRESS-Plus framework, and generalized linear models were used to test for association between EQ-5D-5L and the PROGRESS-Plus variables. Ordered logit models were used to obtain odds ratios for the effect of the PROGRESS-Plus variables on reporting problems on the EQ-5D-5L dimensions. The Kakwani index was calculated for each country.ResultsData were obtained for representative samples in each country, giving a combined total of 11,284 respondents. Different patterns of inequality were observed among the five countries. The biggest drivers of inequality were age and gender, and the biggest EQ-5D factors were self-care in Belize and pain/discomfort in the other four countries.ConclusionThis study demonstrated that the EQ-5D-5L instrument can easily be added to national surveys. Inequality measures from this study can be used as baseline values for comparisons with future similar surveys in these five countries to infer changes in health inequality as measured by EQ-5D outcomes. These can be used to track the performance of policy initiatives aimed at specific demographic groups.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40258-022-00754-9.

How Is Health Equity Assessed in Cochrane Musculoskeletal Reviews?

To evaluate the extent to which Cochrane Musculoskeletal systematic reviews assess and analyze health equity considerations. We included Cochrane Musculoskeletal systematic reviews that included trials with participants aged ≥ 50 years and that were published from 2015 to 2020. We assessed the extent to which reviews considered health equity in the description of the population in the PICO (Patient/Population - Intervention - Comparison/Comparator - Outcome) framework, data analysis (planned and conducted), description of participant characteristics, summary of findings, and applicability of results using the PROGRESS-Plus framework. The PROGRESS acronym stands for place of residence (rural or urban), race/ethnicity/culture/language, occupation, gender/sex, religion, education, socioeconomic status, and social capital, and Plus represents age, disability, relationship features, time-dependent relationships, comorbidities, and health literacy. In total, 52 systematic reviews met our inclusion criteria. At least 1 element of PROGRESS-Plus was considered in 90% (47/52) of the reviews regarding the description of participants and in 85% (44/52) of reviews regarding question formulation. For participant description, the most reported factors were age (47/52, 90%) and sex (45/52, 87%). In total, 8 (15%) reviews planned to analyze outcomes by sex, age, and comorbidities. Only 1 had sufficient data to carry this out. In total, 19 (37%) reviews discussed the applicability of the results to 1 or more PROGRESS-Plus factor, most frequently across sex (12/52, 23%) and age (9/52, 17%). Sex and age were the most reported PROGRESS-Plus factors in any sections of the Cochrane Musculoskeletal reviews. We suggest a template for reporting participant characteristics that authors of reviews believe may influence outcomes. This could help patients and practitioners make judgments about applicability.

Inequity in exercise-based interventions for adults with intermittent claudication due to peripheral arterial disease: a systematic review

Purpose To determine the equity in access to trials of exercise interventions for adults with intermittent claudication due to peripheral arterial disease. Methods Systematic electronic database searches of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials, PEDRO, Opengrey, ISRCTN and ClinincalTrials.gov for randomised controlled trials of exercise interventions for adults with intermittent claudication were conducted. Data extraction was informed by Cochrane’s PROGRESS-Plus framework. Results Searches identified 6412 records. Following the screening of 262 full texts, 49 trials including 3695 participants were included. All trials excluded potential participants on at least one equity factor. This comprised place of residence, language, sex, personal characteristics (e.g., age and disability), features of relationships (e.g., familial risk factors) and time-dependent factors, (e.g., time since revascularisation). Overall, 1839 of 7567 potential participants (24.3%) were excluded based on equity factors. Disability was the most frequently reported factor for exclusions. Conclusion Trialists endeavour to enrol a representative sample in exercise trials whilst preserving the safety profile of the intervention. This review highlights that these efforts can inadvertently lead to inequities in access as all trials excluded potential participants on at least one equity factor. Future exercise trials should optimise participation to maximise generalisability of findings. PROSPERO registration no. CRD42020189965. Implications for rehabilitation Equity factors influence health opportunities and outcomes. All trials of exercise for people with intermittent claudication excluded adults on at least one equity factor. Disability was the predominant factor for exclusions from trials. Trials should optimise participation to maximise generalisability of results as these findings are used to inform treatment and service design.

Health equity guiding frameworks and indices in injury: A review of the literature

Background: In early 2021, CDC released the CORE Health Equity Strategy, which resolves to integrate a comprehensive health equity approach to the work of the Agency. One priority of the Injury Center’s Division of Injury Prevention is to move health equity research in injury forward. The purpose of this research is to perform an initial exploration of health equity guiding frameworks and indices to better understand which of these has been applied to injury research topics. Methods: A PubMed and CINAHL search of meta-analysis and systematic review articles was conducted from January 1998 through April 2022. Articles of any type and additional frameworks/indices were also identified from staff knowledge of the literature. Books were also considered, where accessible. The following areas were reviewed for each resource: population addressed, guiding framework/index, other health equity variables, gaps identified, and whether the articles addressed an injury topic. Findings: The PubMed/CINAHL search produced 230 articles, and an additional 29 articles and 8 books were added from previous knowledge of the literature, resulting in a total of 267 resources for review. There were 60 frameworks/indices compiled that were relevant to health equity. Out of all the resources, three reported on an injury topic and used the PROGRESS-Plus framework, the WHO Social Determinants of Health Conceptual Framework, and a social-ecological framework. Conclusions: This study found there were many frameworks/indices for measuring health equity; however, there were few injury-related meta-analysis and systematic review articles. Some frameworks/indices may be more appropriate than others for measuring health equity in injury topic areas, depending on which social determinants of health (SDOHs) they address. Practical Applications: Measuring health equity in injury and other public health research areas can help build a foundation of evidence. Moving forward, injury researchers can consider the frameworks/indices identified through this study in their health equity injury research.

MHealth Interventions to Support Caregivers of Older Adults: Equity-Focused Systematic Review.

BackgroundInformal caregivers, hereafter referred to as caregivers, provide support to older adults so that they can age safely at home. The decision to become a caregiver can be influenced by individual factors, such as personal choice, or societal factors such as social determinants of health, including household income, employment status, and culture-specific gender roles. Over time, caregivers’ health can be negatively affected by their caregiving roles. Although programs exist to support caregivers, the availability and appropriateness of services do not match caregivers’ expressed needs. Research suggests that supportive interventions offered through mobile health (mHealth) technologies have the potential to increase caregivers’ access to supportive services. However, a knowledge gap remains regarding the extent to which social determinants of health are considered in the design, implementation, and evaluation of mHealth interventions intended to support the caregivers of older adults.ObjectiveThis study aimed to conduct a systematic review to determine how health equity is considered in the design, implementation, and evaluation of mHealth interventions for caregivers of older adults using Cochrane Equity’s PROGRESS-Plus (place of residence, race, ethnicity, culture, language, occupation, gender, religion, education, social capital, socioeconomic status–plus age, disability, and sexual orientation) framework and synthesize evidence of the impacts of the identified caregiver-focused mHealth interventions.MethodsA systematic review was conducted using 5 databases. Articles published between January 2010 and June 2021 were included if they evaluated or explored the impact of mHealth interventions on the health and well-being of informal caregivers of older adults. mHealth interventions were defined as supportive services, for example, education, that caregivers of older adults accessed via mobile or wireless devices.ResultsIn total, 28 articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. The interventions evaluated sought to connect caregivers with services, facilitate caregiving, and promote caregivers’ health and well-being. The PROGRESS-Plus framework factors were mainly considered in the results, discussion, and limitations sections of the included studies. Some PROGRESS-Plus factors such as sexual orientation, religion, and occupation, received little to no consideration across any phase of the intervention design, implementation, or evaluation. Overall, the findings of this review suggest that mHealth interventions were positively received by study participants. Such interventions have the potential to reduce caregiver burden and positively affect caregivers’ physical and mental health while supporting them as caregivers. The study findings highlight the importance of making support available to help facilitate caregivers’ use of mHealth interventions, as well as in the use of appropriate language and text.ConclusionsThe successful uptake and spread of mHealth interventions to support caregivers of older adults will depend on creating opportunities for the inclusive involvement of a broad range of stakeholders at all stages of design, implementation, and evaluation.

Guidance relevant to the reporting of health equity in observational research: a scoping review protocol

IntroductionHealth inequities are defined as unfair and avoidable differences in health between groups within a population. Most health research is conducted through observational studies, which are able to offer real-world...

Global profile of individuals undergoing total knee replacement through the PROGRESS-PLUS equity lens: Protocol for a systematic review.

BackgroundOsteoarthritis (OA) is a heterogenous degenerative disorder often causing destructive joint changes with severe pain and functional disability. Modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors, social context and psychological factors influence the development and progression of the disease. Total knee replacement (TKR) aims at reducing pain and improving function and is more successful with pre-operative and post-operative rehabilitation. However, most international research on rehabilitation interventions is conducted in high income contexts.ObjectiveThe aim of our systematic review is to gain an overview of the demographic and social profiles of adults undergoing TKR for primary knee OA in lower, middle- and high-income countries through a health equity lens to inform the translation of intervention research in local contexts.MethodsA systematic review will be conducted and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. Eligibility criteria include observational studies and grey literature (theses) since the beginning of the databases reporting on demographic data of adults awaiting or undergoing TKR surgery. The PROGRESS-Plus framework will be used to describe equity elements.ResultsA narrative summary and description of the global profile of individuals undergoing total knee replacement for osteoarthritis.ConclusionA snapshot of the global demographic and social profile of individuals receiving TKR for primary knee OA through an equity lens will shed light on the similarities and differences between individuals from different contexts. Global demographic profile information may inform or assist in the development of translational strategies for evidence-based rehabilitation.Clinical implicationsTranslation of existing rehabilitation interventions to local contexts could improve pre-operative and post-operative outcomes for individuals on our surgical waiting lists.

Exploring equity in educational policies and interventions in primary and secondary education in the context of public health emergencies: A systematic literature review

School disruptions during public health emergencies (PHEs) have a detrimental effect on students, families and societies, and exacerbate pre-existing education inequalities. Built on OECD's six education equity policy options and PROGRESS-Plus framework, this systematic review produced a narrative account of consequences of and barriers to access to primary and secondary educational policies and interventions implemented during PHEs through an equity lens. By examining 52 included studies, the review found that disadvantaged learners lacked reliable access to essential learning materials and resources. Families from disadvantaged socio-economic background and those with learning difficulties required extra support services during remote learning. Schools faced unique challenges in delivering inclusive teaching during PHEs. Recommendations were provided for practitioners to uphold education equity during school disruptions.

Development of an extension of the OMERACT Summary of Measurement Properties table to capture equity considerations: SOMP-Equity

ObjectiveTo develop an equity extension of the OMERACT Summary of Measurement Properties (SOMP) Table, SOMP Equity to describe whether a patient reported outcome measure (PROM) works well among patients of diverse languages and cultures, education levels, and other population characteristics. MethodsWe used the PROGRESS-Plus framework to categorize equity characteristics assessed in trials of PROM. PROGRESS refers to Place of residence, Race/ethnicity/culture/language, Occupation, Gender/sex, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status, and Social Capital, while the ‘plus’ captures additional characteristics, such as age. We pilot tested our SOMP Equity Extension using the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) as a prototypical PROM. ResultsThe SOMP Equity Extension retains the same columns as the original OMERACT SOMP (domain match, feasibility, construct validity, test-retest reliability, longitudinal construct validity, clinical trial discrimination, thresholds of meaning) but uses the PROGRESS-Plus characteristics as rows. We found several examples of studies of the HAQ which had assessed one or more PROGRESS-Plus characteristics. ConclusionsThe most commonly reported equity considerations were related to language. OMERACT Equity virtual meeting participants were polled and they indicated that the SOMP Equity Extension is useful for highlighting and tracking equity considerations for OMERACT Core Outcome Measurement Instruments.

Assessment of health equity consideration in masking/PPE policies to contain COVID-19 using PROGRESS-plus framework: a systematic review

IntroductionThere is increasing evidence that COVID-19 has unmasked the true magnitude of health inequity worldwide. Policies and guidance for containing the infection and reducing the COVID-19 related deaths have proven to be effective, however the extent to which health inequity factors were considered in these policies is rather unknown. The aim of this study is to measure the extent to which COVID-19 related policies reflect equity considerations by focusing on the global policy landscape around wearing masks and personal protection equipment (PPE).MethodsA systematic search for published documents on COVID-19 and masks/PPE was conducted across six databases: PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, ERIC, ASSIA and Psycinfo. Reviews, policy documents, briefs related to COVID-19 and masks/PPE were included in the review. To assess the extent of incorporation of equity in the policy documents, a guidance framework known as ‘PROGRESS-Plus’: Place of residence, Race/ethnicity, Occupation, Gender/sex, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status, Social capital, Plus (age, disability etc.) was utilized.ResultsThis review included 212 policy documents. Out of 212 policy documents, 190 policy documents (89.62%) included at least one PROGRESS-plus component. Most of the policy documents (n = 163, 85.79%) focused on “occupation” component of the PROGRESS-plus followed by personal characteristics associated with discrimination (n = 4;2.11%), place of residence (n = 2;1.05%) and education (n = 1;0.53%). Subgroup analysis revealed that most of the policy documents (n = 176, 83.01%) were focused on “workers” such as healthcare workers, mortuary workers, school workers, transportation workers, essential workers etc. Of the remaining policy documents, most were targeted towards whole population (n = 30; 14.15%). Contrary to “worker focused” policy documents, most of the ‘whole population focused’ policy documents didn’t have a PROGRESS-plus equity component rendering them equity limiting for the society.ConclusionOur review highlights even if policies considered health inequity during the design/implementation, this consideration was often one dimensional in nature. In addition, population wide policies should be carefully designed and implemented after identifying relevant equity related barriers in order to produce better outcomes for the whole society.

Equity Effects of Dietary Nudging Field Experiments: Systematic Review

Background: Dietary behaviours are among the key modifiable risk factors for non-communicable diseases. Importantly, dietary behaviours vary substantially between groups and individuals with different socioeconomic positions, with more disadvantaged groups and individuals being exposed to more dietary risk factors. The goal of this review is to summarise the existing research on equity effects of dietary nudging interventions.Methods: Systematic review of nudging interventions conducted in a field setting that report an observable indicator of dietary behaviour, include a control group, and report effect sizes stratified by indicators of socioeconomic status as outlined in the PROGRESS-Plus framework. Two databases (scopus, Pubmed) were searched (last search June 2021), and 18 articles with 19 studies (k = 46 equity comparisons) were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool. Due to heterogeneity in equity dimensions and study outcomes, a harvest plot was used to summarise data.Results: The majority of equity comparisons (38 out of 46) were available for cognitive nudges. Most of these (22 out of 38 comparisons) found that cognitive nudges worked equally well in more and less disadvantaged populations; however, in 12 out of the 38 comparisons, they favoured those who were less disadvantaged. Two out of four comparisons on behavioural nudges favoured more disadvantaged persons.Conclusions: The differential effects of dietary nudging interventions in this review can contribute to increases in health inequalities. At the same time, a substantial number of interventions showed no equity effects. Importantly, this review suggests that more research on nudging interventions and health equity is needed. Future interventions should report effect sizes stratified by indicators of social inequality.Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42019137469)

The Association between Post-Migration Nutrition and Lifestyle Transition and the Risk of Developing Chronic Diseases among Sub-Saharan African Migrants: A Mixed Method Systematic Review Protocol.

Sub-Saharan African (SSA) migrants face nutrition and lifestyle changes upon arrival in a host country. The shift in diet and lifestyle reflects post-migration acculturation and could predispose migrants to nutrition- and lifestyle- related chronic diseases. A mixed-methods systematic review of published studies and the grey literature on post-migration nutrition and lifestyle transition among SSA migrants will be undertaken. Studies published in English and conducted from 2000 to 2020 using quantitative and/or qualitative methods will be included. Ten bibliographic databases will be searched: Scopus, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Global Health, CINAHL, PubMed, ProQuest, PsycINFO, Informit and Web of Science. Data extraction will be informed by the Cochrane PROGRESS-Plus framework and the Joanna Briggs Institute manual. The quality of the included studies will be appraised for risk of bias using validated tools. An integrated approach to quantitative and qualitative data synthesis through data transformation will be undertaken, and a narrative synthesis of the findings will be provided. This protocol is guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines and provides insight into the scope and parameters of the systematic review to be conducted. The aim of the review is to evaluate the association between post-migration nutrition and lifestyle transition and the risk of developing chronic diseases among SSA migrants in Australia. This review will provide insight into possible areas for interventions to improve the health of migrants. Systematic Review Registration: The protocol was registered with the PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews CRD42020206560.

Equity was rarely considered in Cochrane Eyes and Vision systematic reviews and primary studies on cataract

ObjectiveWe sought to understand the extent to which Cochrane Eyes and Vision systematic reviews of interventions for cataract, and primary studies, consider equity. Study Design and SettingThis is a review of Cochrane Eyes and Vision systematic reviews (CSRs) on cataract published on the Cochrane Library (end of March 2019) (n = 23), and recently published primary studies included in those reviews (n = 62), using the PROGRESSPlus framework. ResultsOne CSR considered equity as a topic. Four (17%) CSRs included a low- and middle-income country (LMIC) author; one of them was a first author. The CSR with equity as a main topic restricted primary studies to those conducted in LMICs; otherwise none of the systematic reviews used PROGRESS factors as inclusion or exclusion criteria. None of the CSRs reported subgroup analyses by any PROGRESS factor, although these were planned in two.Two of the primary studies were led by an LMIC author; 42% involved LMIC authors; 37% were conducted in LMICs; 73% of studies reported on gender/sex of participants, but other PROGRESS factors were less frequently reported. Three studies reported subgroup analyses by sex; one reported subgroup analyses by race/ethnicity. ConclusionPROGRESS factors and equity are rarely considered in studies of interventions for cataract, and this is reflected in the associated Cochrane reviews.

Effectiveness of interpretive front-of-pack nutritional labelling schemes on the promotion of healthier food choices: a systematic review.

Interpretive front-of-package nutrition labelling can contribute to healthier food habits. This systematic review aimed to examine the effectiveness of interpretive front-of-package nutrition labelling schemes on consumers' food choices, namely at the moment of food purchase, and to analyse if this potential front-of-package nutrition labelling's effect varies according to different socioeconomic groups. Electronic databases (Cochrane Library, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) search was performed to identify peer-reviewed articles describing longitudinal studies evaluating the effect of front-of-package nutrition labelling schemes on consumers' food choices, according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-Equity 2012 Extension guidelines. No publication-period or language restrictions were applied. PROGRESS-Plus framework was used to report if and how socioeconomic factors were considered in analyses of front-of-package nutrition labelling-related interventions' effect. Nine studies were selected for narrative synthesis (seven randomized controlled trials and two cross-over trials). When compared with no-interpretive-label conditions, front-of-package nutrition labelling showed a positive impact for nutritional content understanding, healthiness perception of products, selection of products with better nutritional quality, and purchase intention. However, there is no robust evidence of superiority of a specific front-of-package nutrition labelling scheme's effect, neither on consumers' understanding of nutritional content nor on food choices. An evaluation of the studies following the PROGRESS-Plus framework revealed that socioecononomic status and education were the most frequently used dimensions, when assessing the effect of interpretative front-of-pack nutrition labels. More evidence is necessary to determine the role of front-of-pack nutrition labels in decreasing inequalities between different population subgroups, namely among the most vulnerable subgroups, on the promotion of healthy food choices. Well controlled longitudinal studies, following a real-world evidence approach, are needed to clarify front-of-package nutrition labelling's impact on consumers' food choices, namely at purchase points, taking into account the most vulnerable population subgroups, such as those with lower literacy and/or financial resources.

PROTOCOL: The effects of empowerment-based nutrition interventions on the nutritional status of adolescent girls in low- and middle-income countries.

PROTOCOL: The effects of empowerment-based nutrition interventions on the nutritional status of adolescent girls in low- and middle-income countries.

Inequity in rehabilitation interventions after hip fracture: a systematic review.

to determine the extent to which equity factors contributed to eligibility criteria of trials of rehabilitation interventions after hip fracture. We define equity factors as those that stratify healthcare opportunities and outcomes. systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, CINHAL, PEDro, Open Grey, BASE and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomised controlled trials of rehabilitation interventions after hip fracture published between 1 January 2008 and 30 May 2018. Trials not published in English, secondary prevention or new models of service delivery (e.g. orthogeriatric care pathway) were excluded. Duplicate screening for eligibility, risk of bias (Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool) and data extraction (Cochrane's PROGRESS-Plus framework). twenty-three published, eight protocol, four registered ongoing randomised controlled trials (4,449 participants) were identified. A total of 69 equity factors contributed to eligibility criteria of the 35 trials. For more than 50% of trials, potential participants were excluded based on residency in a nursing home, cognitive impairment, mobility/functional impairment, minimum age and/or non-surgical candidacy. Where reported, this equated to the exclusion of 2,383 out of 8,736 (27.3%) potential participants based on equity factors. Residency in a nursing home and cognitive impairment were the main drivers of these exclusions. the generalisability of trial results to the underlying population of frail older adults is limited. Yet, this is the evidence base underpinning current service design. Future trials should include participants with cognitive impairment and those admitted from nursing homes. For those excluded, an evidence-informed reasoning for the exclusion should be explicitly stated. CRD42018085930.

Impact of Public Smoking Bans on Social Inequalities in Children's Exposure to Tobacco Smoke at Home: An Equity-Focused Systematic Review.

A systematic review was conducted to evaluate the impact of public smoking bans on social inequalities in children's secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure at home. Five databases were electronically searched for articles on children's SHS exposure at home related to public smoking bans. In addition, the gray literature and German public health journals were considered. Search was restricted to English and German publications. Of 3037 records screened, 25 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria by either measuring SHS exposure before and after public smoking ban introduction or by comparing exposure between regions with and without smoke-free legislation. Studies were further examined whether they additionally reported on impacts on social inequalities in SHS exposure. Information on children's SHS exposure at home in relation to smoke-free legislation were extracted by one reviewer and checked for accuracy by a second reviewer. According to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-Equity (PRISMA-E) guidelines for equity-focused systematic reviews, the PROGRESS-Plus framework was applied to data extraction and analysis with focus on social inequalities in SHS exposure. Results were visualized by a harvest plot. Eight studies gave results on the impact of public smoking bans on social inequalities in children's SHS exposure. Whereas only one study indicated widening of the social gap in exposure, seven studies showed no impact or a reduction of social inequalities in exposure. First evidence on short-term impact of public smoking bans does not support the assumption of intervention-generated inequalities in children's SHS exposure at home. Future studies should focus on long-term equity impacts of smoke-free legislation. There are substantial social inequalities in children's SHS exposure in many countries. Both hypotheses on the effect of smoke-free legislation on children's SHS exposure at home, the displacement hypothesis and the social diffusion hypothesis, did not take social inequalities into account. Up to now, only few studies analyzed the effects of smoke-free legislation on social inequalities in children's SHS exposure at home. Public smoking bans had overall no negative impact on social inequalities in children's SHS exposure at home. More consistent reporting of absolute and relative inequalities is needed to comprehensively assess equity impact of smoke-free legislation.

Defining and measuring health equity effects in research on task shifting interventions in high-income countries: a systematic review protocol

IntroductionTask shifting interventions are intended to both deliver clinically effective treatments to reduce disease burden and address health inequities or population vulnerability. Little is known about how health equity and...

What Factors Affect Take Up of Voluntary and Community-Based Health Insurance Programmes in Low- and Middle-Income Countries? Protocol

The penetration of commercial or public contributory health insurance to the informal sector is very poor and the scaling of successful local interventions of Community-based health insurance (CBHI) seems to be one of the promising approaches to remedy this situation. However, the existing information about the determinants of such success is lacking. There is no coherent understanding of an ideal way to implement and sustain such local efforts. Lately, there has been a proliferation of thinking about the demand for insurance and medical care, and some attempts have been made to understand demand for voluntary health insurance like CBHI in low-income countries (ILO, 2002). There seems to be few literatures pertaining to the patterns of uptake of such insurance. Evidence on determinants of enrolment with CBHI comes mostly from recent econometric modelling to predict influences of individual and household characteristics on enrolment decisions (Ito and Kono, 2010; Morsink and Geurts, 2011; Bonan et al., 2012). A few qualitative studies inform and complement studies on determinants of enrolment (Criel and Waelkens, 2003; De Allegri et al., 2006; Basaza et al., 2008), while others used mixed method approaches (Ozawa and Walker, 2009).The research question for the proposed systematic review is the identification of key parameters that determine the uptake of voluntary and community-based health insurance in low- and middle-income countries. Our review will also cover factors affecting re-enrolment in CBHI schemes. We will follow a search strategy, using online databases related to thematic areas in the objective including social science, economics and medical science. We will search specific electronic databases which will be further supplemented by hand searching, citation tracking, and personal communication including grey literature.The determinants of CBHI uptake would be assessed using a broad evidence base (including both quantitative and qualitative). We plan on using the PROGRESS-Plus framework of Kavanagh et al. (2008) so as to interpret the data through an equity lens viz. Place of Residence, Ethnicity, Occupation, Gender, Religion, Education, Social Capital (including peer experience with insurance, and specifically claims), Socio-economic position (SEP), Age, Disability, Sexual orientation, other vulnerable groups (e.g. disabled, HIV/AIDS, etc.). We will supplement this with topic-specific determinants such as previous exposure to insurance, having followed insurance education campaigns, and financial literacy in general (i.e. previous experience with micro-finance in the broad sense – credit and savings). For all included studies in addition to describing their study design, we will also assess their quality. We will assess the quality of included studies using checklist (Waddington et al., 2012), making judgments on the adequacy of reporting, data collection, presentation, analysis and conclusions drawn. It is important to assess the methodological quality of individual studies (i.e. validity assessment) as it may affect both the results of the individual studies and ultimately the conclusions reached from the body of studies.A success of this project is also linked to our ability to collecting the information that is scattered in many data sources, analysis of the data and translation of this analysis to a set of coherent general guidelines for successful implementation of voluntary health insurance among the poor in low income countries. Through the identification of groups particularly within South and South East Asia that are working on CBHI as well as through the course of the review; We aim to emphasize the creation of knowledge translation tools e.g. websites, policy briefs, newspapers, articles that can reach the end-line users such as policy-makers, donors and civil society organizations through conference presentations, policy briefs and contributing to the updating and maintenance of existing webpages. This would be enabled by an advisory group comprising of policy-makers, donors, methodology expert and other researchers active in the area of initiatives for pro-poor insurance coverage in LMIC.

Determinants of MSK health and disability--social determinants of inequities in MSK health.

Even in most egalitarian societies, disparities in care exist to the disadvantage of some people with chronic musculoskeletal (MSK) disorders and related disability. These situations translate into inequality in health and health outcomes. The goal of this chapter is to review concepts and determinants associated with health inequity, and the effect of interventions to minimize their impact. Health inequities are avoidable, unnecessary, unfair and unjust. Inequities can occur across the health care continuum, from primary and secondary prevention to diagnosis and treatment. There are many ways to define and identify inequities, according for instance to ethical, philosophical, epidemiological, sociological, economic, or public health points of view. These complementary views can be applied to set a framework of analysis, identify determinants and suggest targets of action against inequity. Most determinants of inequity in MSK disorders are similar to those in the general population and other chronic diseases. People may be exposed to inequity as a result of policies and rules set by the health care system, individuals' demographic characteristics (e.g., education level), or some behavior of health professionals and of patients. Osteoarthritis (OA) represents a typical chronic MSK condition. The PROGRESS-Plus framework is useful for identifying the important role that place of residence, race and ethnicity, occupation, gender, education, socioeconomic status, social capital and networks, age, disability and sexual orientation may have in creating or maintaining inequities in this disease. In rheumatoid arthritis (RA), a consideration of international data led to the conclusion that not all RA patients who needed biologic therapy had access to it. The disparity in care was due partly to policies of a country and a health care system, or economic conditions. We conclude this chapter by discussing examples of interventions designed for reducing health inequity.