Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Jull J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5623521 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Jull J J Whitehead M M Petticrew M M Kristjansson E E Gough D D Petkovic J J Volmink J J Weijer C C Taljaard M M Edwards S S Mbuagbaw L L Cookson R R McGowan J J Lyddiatt A A Boyer Y Y Cuervo L G LG Armstrong R R White H H Yoganathan M M Pantoja T T Shea B B Pottie K K Norheim O O Baird S S Robberstad B B Sommerfelt H H Asada Y Y Wells G G Tugwell P P Welch V V

BMJ open 20170925 9

<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>An interdisciplinary and international research team engaged in an iterative consensus building process to develop and refine the conceptual framework via ...[more]

PMID: 28951402

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundExisting research on health equity falls short of identifying a comprehensive set of indicators for measurement across health systems. Health systems in the ASEAN region, in particular, lack a standardised framework to assess health equity. This paper proposes a comprehensive framework to measure health equity in the ASEAN region and highlights current gaps in data availability according to its indicator components.MethodsA comprehensive literature review was undertaken to map out a core set of indicators to evaluate health equity at the health system level. Secondary data collection was subsequently conducted to assess current data availability for ASEAN states in key global health databases, national health accounts, and policy documents.ResultsA robust framework to measure health equity was developed comprising 195 indicators across Health System Inputs and Processes, Outputs, Outcomes, and Contextual Factors. Total indicator data availability equated to 72.9% (1423/1950). Across the ASEAN region, the Inputs and Processes sub-component of Health Financing had complete data availability for all indicators (160/160, 100%), while Access to Essential Medicine had the least data available (6/30, 20%). Under Outputs and Outcomes, Coverage of Selected Interventions (161/270, 59.63%) and Population Health (350/350, 100%) respectively had the most data available, while other indicator sub-components had little to none (≤ 38%). 72.145% (384/530) of data is available for all Contextual Factors. Out of the 10 ASEAN countries, the Philippines had the highest data availability overall at 77.44% (151/195), while Brunei Darussalam and Vietnam had the lowest data availability at 67.18% (131/195).ConclusionsThe data availability gaps highlighted in this study underscore the need for a standardised framework to guide data collection and benchmarking of health equity in ASEAN. There is a need to prioritise regular data collection for overlooked indicator areas and in countries with low levels of data availability. The application of this indicator framework and resulting data availability analysis could be conducted beyond ASEAN to enable cross-regional benchmarking of health equity.

Project description:BackgroundNumerous determinants have been linked to public mental health; however, they have not been brought together in a comprehensive conceptual framework. The goal of this work was to bring together academic research, practitioner expertise, and public perspectives to create a public mental health conceptual framework.MethodsThe development process proceeded in four stages. First, we identified a comprehensive list of potential determinants through a state-of-the-art academic literature review, grey literature review, and created mind maps created by peer researchers. Next, we conducted in-person workshops, consultations, and an online survey with academics, practitioners, policy makers, and members of the public to review the potential determinants, nominate additional determinants, and prioritise determinants by importance for understanding public mental health. This iterative process resulted in the final list of determinants contained in the framework. We then conducted rapid reviews to define each determinant and to identify key research, interventions, and resources. Finally, we worked with a design team to visualise the conceptual framework as an online tool and printable infographic.ResultsWe found substantial overlap between sources reflecting a shared understanding of the key drivers of public mental health. The unique determinants that emerged from each data source highlighted the importance of using multiple sources to create a comprehensive model. 72 potential determinants were prioritised through stakeholder consultations, resulting in a final list of 55 determinants and organised into four levels: individual, family, community, and structural.ConclusionsThis is the most complete conceptual framework for public mental health to date, bringing together academic research, policy and practitioner views, and lived experience perspectives. The co-production processes and tools we used provides a template for researchers looking to include multiple perspectives in their research. The conceptual framework draws together current knowledge on each determinant, but also highlights areas where further research is needed to better understand the relationship between each factor and mental health, which can inform the research agenda. This online tool and infographic can be used by practitioners to identify interventions for promoting mental health, and by the general public as a resource to increase awareness of the broad factors which shape public mental health.

Project description:BackgroundHealth care databases contain a wealth of information that can be used to develop programs and mature health care systems. There is concern that the sensitive nature of health data (eg, ethnicity, reproductive health, sexually transmitted infections, and lifestyle information) can have significant impact on individuals if misused, particularly among vulnerable and marginalized populations. As academic institutions, nongovernmental organizations, and international agencies begin to collaborate with low- and middle-income countries to develop and deploy health information technology (HIT), it is important to understand the technical and practical security implications of these initiatives.ObjectiveOur aim is to develop a conceptual framework for risk stratification of global health data partnerships and HIT projects. In addition to identifying key conceptual domains, we map each domain to a variety of publicly available indices that could be used to inform a quantitative model.MethodsWe conducted an overview of the literature to identify relevant publications, position statements, white papers, and reports. The research team reviewed all sources and used the framework method and conceptual framework analysis to name and categorize key concepts, integrate them into domains, and synthesize them into an overarching conceptual framework. Once key domains were identified, public international data sources were searched for relevant structured indices to generate quantitative counterparts.ResultsWe identified 5 key domains to inform our conceptual framework: State of HIT, Economics of Health Care, Demographics and Equity, Societal Freedom and Safety, and Partnership and Trust. Each of these domains was mapped to a number of structured indices.ConclusionsThere is a complex relationship among the legal, economic, and social domains of health care, which affects the state of HIT in low- and middle-income countries and associated data security risks. The strength of partnership and trust among collaborating organizations is an important moderating factor. Additional work is needed to formalize the assessment of partnership and trust and to develop a quantitative model of the conceptual framework that can help support organizational decision-making.

Project description:Over the past century, the environment of the Gulf of Mexico has been significantly altered and impaired by extensive human activities. A national commitment to restore the Gulf was finally initiated in response to the unprecedented Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010. Consequently, there is a critical need for an assessment framework and associated set of indicators that can characterize the health and sustainability of an ecosystem having the scale and complexity of the Gulf. The assessment framework presented here was developed as an integration of previous ecological risk- and environmental management-based frameworks for assessing ecosystem health. It was designed to identify the natural and anthropogenic drivers, pressures, and stressors impinging on ecosystems and ecosystem services, and the ecological conditions that result, manifested as effects on valued ecosystem components. Four types of societal and ecological responses are identified: reduction of pressures and stressors, remediation of existing stressors, active ecosystem restoration, and natural ecological recovery. From this conceptual framework are derived the specific indicators to characterize ecological condition and progress toward achieving defined ecological health and sustainability goals. Additionally, the framework incorporates a hierarchical structure to communicate results to a diversity of audiences, from research scientists to environmental managers and decision makers, with the level of detail or aggregation appropriate for each targeted audience. Two proof-of-concept studies were conducted to test this integrated assessment and decision framework, a prototype Texas Coastal Ecosystems Report Card, and a pilot study on enhancing rookery islands in the Mission-Aransas Reserve, Texas, USA. This Drivers-Pressures-Stressors-Condition-Responses (DPSCR4 ) conceptual framework is a comprehensive conceptual model of the coupled human-ecological system. Much like its predecessor, the ecological risk assessment framework, the DPSCR4 conceptual framework can be tailored to different scales of complexity, different ecosystem types with different stress regimes, and different environmental settings. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2019;15:544-564. © 2019 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC).

Dataset Information

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

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets