Cargando…

Reporting of health equity considerations in cluster and individually randomized trials

BACKGROUND: The randomized controlled trial (RCT) is considered the gold standard study design to inform decisions about the effectiveness of interventions. However, a common limitation is inadequate reporting of the applicability of the intervention and trial results for people who are “socially di...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Petkovic, Jennifer, Jull, Janet, Yoganathan, Manosila, Dewidar, Omar, Baird, Sarah, Grimshaw, Jeremy M., Johansson, Kjell Arne, Kristjansson, Elizabeth, McGowan, Jessie, Moher, David, Petticrew, Mark, Robberstad, Bjarne, Shea, Beverley, Tugwell, Peter, Volmink, Jimmy, Wells, George A., Whitehead, Margaret, Cuervo, Luis Gabriel, White, Howard, Taljaard, Monica, Welch, Vivian
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7118943/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32245522
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-4223-5
_version_ 1783514670348369920
author Petkovic, Jennifer
Jull, Janet
Yoganathan, Manosila
Dewidar, Omar
Baird, Sarah
Grimshaw, Jeremy M.
Johansson, Kjell Arne
Kristjansson, Elizabeth
McGowan, Jessie
Moher, David
Petticrew, Mark
Robberstad, Bjarne
Shea, Beverley
Tugwell, Peter
Volmink, Jimmy
Wells, George A.
Whitehead, Margaret
Cuervo, Luis Gabriel
White, Howard
Taljaard, Monica
Welch, Vivian
author_facet Petkovic, Jennifer
Jull, Janet
Yoganathan, Manosila
Dewidar, Omar
Baird, Sarah
Grimshaw, Jeremy M.
Johansson, Kjell Arne
Kristjansson, Elizabeth
McGowan, Jessie
Moher, David
Petticrew, Mark
Robberstad, Bjarne
Shea, Beverley
Tugwell, Peter
Volmink, Jimmy
Wells, George A.
Whitehead, Margaret
Cuervo, Luis Gabriel
White, Howard
Taljaard, Monica
Welch, Vivian
author_sort Petkovic, Jennifer
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The randomized controlled trial (RCT) is considered the gold standard study design to inform decisions about the effectiveness of interventions. However, a common limitation is inadequate reporting of the applicability of the intervention and trial results for people who are “socially disadvantaged” and this can affect policy-makers’ decisions. We previously developed a framework for identifying health-equity-relevant trials, along with a reporting guideline for transparent reporting. In this study, we provide a descriptive assessment of health-equity considerations in 200 randomly sampled equity-relevant trials. METHODS: We developed a search strategy to identify health-equity-relevant trials published between 2013 and 2015. We randomly sorted the 4316 records identified by the search and screened studies until 100 individually randomized (RCTs) and 100 cluster randomized controlled trials (CRTs) were identified. We developed and pilot-tested a data extraction form based on our initial work, to inform the development of our reporting guideline for equity-relevant randomized trials. RESULTS: In total, 39 trials (20%) were conducted in a low- and middle-income country and 157 trials (79%) in a high-income country focused on socially disadvantaged populations (78% CRTs, 79% RCTs). Seventy-four trials (37%) reported a subgroup analysis across a population characteristic associated with disadvantage (25% CRT, 49% RCTs), with 19% of included studies reporting subgroup analyses across sex, 9% across race/ethnicity/culture, and 4% across socioeconomic status. No subgroup analyses were reported for place of residence, occupation, religion, education, or social capital. One hundred and forty-one trials (71%) discussed the applicability of their results to one or more socially disadvantaged populations (68% of CRT, 73% of RCT). DISCUSSION: In this set of trials, selected for their relevance to health equity, data that were disaggregated for socially disadvantaged populations were rarely reported. We found that even when the data are available, opportunities to analyze health-equity considerations are frequently missed. The recently published equity extension of the Consolidated Reporting Standards for Randomized Trials (CONSORT-Equity) may help improve delineation of hypotheses related to socially disadvantaged populations, and transparency and completeness of reporting of health-equity considerations in RCTs. This study can serve as a baseline assessment of the reporting of equity considerations.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7118943
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-71189432020-04-07 Reporting of health equity considerations in cluster and individually randomized trials Petkovic, Jennifer Jull, Janet Yoganathan, Manosila Dewidar, Omar Baird, Sarah Grimshaw, Jeremy M. Johansson, Kjell Arne Kristjansson, Elizabeth McGowan, Jessie Moher, David Petticrew, Mark Robberstad, Bjarne Shea, Beverley Tugwell, Peter Volmink, Jimmy Wells, George A. Whitehead, Margaret Cuervo, Luis Gabriel White, Howard Taljaard, Monica Welch, Vivian Trials Research BACKGROUND: The randomized controlled trial (RCT) is considered the gold standard study design to inform decisions about the effectiveness of interventions. However, a common limitation is inadequate reporting of the applicability of the intervention and trial results for people who are “socially disadvantaged” and this can affect policy-makers’ decisions. We previously developed a framework for identifying health-equity-relevant trials, along with a reporting guideline for transparent reporting. In this study, we provide a descriptive assessment of health-equity considerations in 200 randomly sampled equity-relevant trials. METHODS: We developed a search strategy to identify health-equity-relevant trials published between 2013 and 2015. We randomly sorted the 4316 records identified by the search and screened studies until 100 individually randomized (RCTs) and 100 cluster randomized controlled trials (CRTs) were identified. We developed and pilot-tested a data extraction form based on our initial work, to inform the development of our reporting guideline for equity-relevant randomized trials. RESULTS: In total, 39 trials (20%) were conducted in a low- and middle-income country and 157 trials (79%) in a high-income country focused on socially disadvantaged populations (78% CRTs, 79% RCTs). Seventy-four trials (37%) reported a subgroup analysis across a population characteristic associated with disadvantage (25% CRT, 49% RCTs), with 19% of included studies reporting subgroup analyses across sex, 9% across race/ethnicity/culture, and 4% across socioeconomic status. No subgroup analyses were reported for place of residence, occupation, religion, education, or social capital. One hundred and forty-one trials (71%) discussed the applicability of their results to one or more socially disadvantaged populations (68% of CRT, 73% of RCT). DISCUSSION: In this set of trials, selected for their relevance to health equity, data that were disaggregated for socially disadvantaged populations were rarely reported. We found that even when the data are available, opportunities to analyze health-equity considerations are frequently missed. The recently published equity extension of the Consolidated Reporting Standards for Randomized Trials (CONSORT-Equity) may help improve delineation of hypotheses related to socially disadvantaged populations, and transparency and completeness of reporting of health-equity considerations in RCTs. This study can serve as a baseline assessment of the reporting of equity considerations. BioMed Central 2020-04-03 /pmc/articles/PMC7118943/ /pubmed/32245522 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-4223-5 Text en © The Author(s). 2020 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Petkovic, Jennifer
Jull, Janet
Yoganathan, Manosila
Dewidar, Omar
Baird, Sarah
Grimshaw, Jeremy M.
Johansson, Kjell Arne
Kristjansson, Elizabeth
McGowan, Jessie
Moher, David
Petticrew, Mark
Robberstad, Bjarne
Shea, Beverley
Tugwell, Peter
Volmink, Jimmy
Wells, George A.
Whitehead, Margaret
Cuervo, Luis Gabriel
White, Howard
Taljaard, Monica
Welch, Vivian
Reporting of health equity considerations in cluster and individually randomized trials
title Reporting of health equity considerations in cluster and individually randomized trials
title_full Reporting of health equity considerations in cluster and individually randomized trials
title_fullStr Reporting of health equity considerations in cluster and individually randomized trials
title_full_unstemmed Reporting of health equity considerations in cluster and individually randomized trials
title_short Reporting of health equity considerations in cluster and individually randomized trials
title_sort reporting of health equity considerations in cluster and individually randomized trials
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7118943/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32245522
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-4223-5
work_keys_str_mv AT petkovicjennifer reportingofhealthequityconsiderationsinclusterandindividuallyrandomizedtrials
AT julljanet reportingofhealthequityconsiderationsinclusterandindividuallyrandomizedtrials
AT yoganathanmanosila reportingofhealthequityconsiderationsinclusterandindividuallyrandomizedtrials
AT dewidaromar reportingofhealthequityconsiderationsinclusterandindividuallyrandomizedtrials
AT bairdsarah reportingofhealthequityconsiderationsinclusterandindividuallyrandomizedtrials
AT grimshawjeremym reportingofhealthequityconsiderationsinclusterandindividuallyrandomizedtrials
AT johanssonkjellarne reportingofhealthequityconsiderationsinclusterandindividuallyrandomizedtrials
AT kristjanssonelizabeth reportingofhealthequityconsiderationsinclusterandindividuallyrandomizedtrials
AT mcgowanjessie reportingofhealthequityconsiderationsinclusterandindividuallyrandomizedtrials
AT moherdavid reportingofhealthequityconsiderationsinclusterandindividuallyrandomizedtrials
AT petticrewmark reportingofhealthequityconsiderationsinclusterandindividuallyrandomizedtrials
AT robberstadbjarne reportingofhealthequityconsiderationsinclusterandindividuallyrandomizedtrials
AT sheabeverley reportingofhealthequityconsiderationsinclusterandindividuallyrandomizedtrials
AT tugwellpeter reportingofhealthequityconsiderationsinclusterandindividuallyrandomizedtrials
AT volminkjimmy reportingofhealthequityconsiderationsinclusterandindividuallyrandomizedtrials
AT wellsgeorgea reportingofhealthequityconsiderationsinclusterandindividuallyrandomizedtrials
AT whiteheadmargaret reportingofhealthequityconsiderationsinclusterandindividuallyrandomizedtrials
AT cuervoluisgabriel reportingofhealthequityconsiderationsinclusterandindividuallyrandomizedtrials
AT whitehoward reportingofhealthequityconsiderationsinclusterandindividuallyrandomizedtrials
AT taljaardmonica reportingofhealthequityconsiderationsinclusterandindividuallyrandomizedtrials
AT welchvivian reportingofhealthequityconsiderationsinclusterandindividuallyrandomizedtrials