Dataset Information

Identifying gaps in COVID-19 health equity data reporting in Canada using a scorecard approach.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To assess health equity-oriented COVID-19 reporting across Canadian provinces and territories, using a scorecard approach.

Methods

A scan was performed of provincial and territorial reporting of five data elements (cumulative totals of tests, cases, hospitalizations, deaths, and population size) across three units of aggregation (province or territory level, health regions, and local areas) (15 "overall" indicators), and for four vulnerable settings (long-term care and detention facilities, schools, and homeless shelters) and eight social markers (age, sex, immigration status, race/ethnicity, healthcare worker status, occupational sector, income, and education) (180 "equity-related" indicators) as of December 31, 2020. Per indicator, one point was awarded if case-delimited data were released, 0.7 points if only summary statistics were reported, and 0 if neither was provided. Results were presented using a scorecard approach.

Results

Overall, information was more complete for cases and deaths than for tests, hospitalizations, and population size denominators needed for rate estimation. Information provided on jurisdictions and their regions, overall, tended to be more available (average score of 58%, "D") than that for equity-related indicators (average score of 17%, "F"). Only British Columbia, Alberta, and Ontario provided case-delimited data, with Ontario and Alberta providing case information for local areas. No jurisdiction reported on outcomes according to patients' immigration status, race/ethnicity, income, or education. Though several provinces reported on cases in long-term care facilities, only Ontario and Quebec provided detailed information for detention facilities and schools, and only Ontario reported on cases within homeless shelters and across occupational sectors.

Conclusion

One year into the pandemic, socially stratified reporting for COVID-19 outcomes remains sparse in Canada. However, several "best practices" in health equity-oriented reporting were observed and set a relevant precedent for all jurisdictions to follow for this pandemic and future ones.

SUBMITTER: Blair A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7978170 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundResearch gaps refer to unanswered questions in the existing body of knowledge, either due to a lack of studies or inconclusive results. Research gaps are essential starting points and motivation in scientific research. Traditional methods for identifying research gaps, such as literature reviews and expert opinions, can be time consuming, labor intensive, and prone to bias. They may also fall short when dealing with rapidly evolving or time-sensitive subjects. Thus, innovative scalable approaches are needed to identify research gaps, systematically assess the literature, and prioritize areas for further study in the topic of interest.ObjectiveIn this paper, we propose a machine learning-based approach for identifying research gaps through the analysis of scientific literature. We used the COVID-19 pandemic as a case study.MethodsWe conducted an analysis to identify research gaps in COVID-19 literature using the COVID-19 Open Research (CORD-19) data set, which comprises 1,121,433 papers related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Our approach is based on the BERTopic topic modeling technique, which leverages transformers and class-based term frequency-inverse document frequency to create dense clusters allowing for easily interpretable topics. Our BERTopic-based approach involves 3 stages: embedding documents, clustering documents (dimension reduction and clustering), and representing topics (generating candidates and maximizing candidate relevance).ResultsAfter applying the study selection criteria, we included 33,206 abstracts in the analysis of this study. The final list of research gaps identified 21 different areas, which were grouped into 6 principal topics. These topics were: "virus of COVID-19," "risk factors of COVID-19," "prevention of COVID-19," "treatment of COVID-19," "health care delivery during COVID-19," "and impact of COVID-19." The most prominent topic, observed in over half of the analyzed studies, was "the impact of COVID-19."ConclusionsThe proposed machine learning-based approach has the potential to identify research gaps in scientific literature. This study is not intended to replace individual literature research within a selected topic. Instead, it can serve as a guide to formulate precise literature search queries in specific areas associated with research questions that previous publications have earmarked for future exploration. Future research should leverage an up-to-date list of studies that are retrieved from the most common databases in the target area. When feasible, full texts or, at minimum, discussion sections should be analyzed rather than limiting their analysis to abstracts. Furthermore, future studies could evaluate more efficient modeling algorithms, especially those combining topic modeling with statistical uncertainty quantification, such as conformal prediction.

Project description:This paper aims to understand the impact of COVID-19 on three mental health outcomes-anxiety, depression, and mental health service use. Specifically, whether the associations between social and economic variables and these outcomes are exacerbated or buffered among equity-seeking groups in Saskatchewan. We analyzed secondary datasets of Saskatchewan adults from population-based national surveys conducted by Mental Health Research Canada (MHRC) on three occasions: cycle 2 (August 2020), cycle 5 (February 2021), and cycle 7 (June 2021). We examined temporal changes in the prevalence of anxiety, depression, and service utilization. Using the responses from 577 respondents in cycle 5 dataset (as it coincides with the peak of 2nd wave), we performed multinomial logistic regression. The policy implications of the findings were explored empirically through a World Café approach with 30 service providers, service users and policy makers in the province. The prevalence of anxiety and depression remained steady but high. Mental health services were not accessed by many who need it. Participants reporting moderate or severe anxiety were more likely to be 30-49 years old, women, and immigrants who earned less than $20,000 annually. Immigrants with either college or technical education presented with a lesser risk of severe anxiety. Factors associated with moderate or severe depression were younger age (<50 years), low household income, as well as immigrants with lower levels of education. Racialized groups had a lower risk of severe depression if they were under 30 years. Students and retirees also had a lower risk of severe depression. Canadian-born residents were more likely to require mental health supports but were not accessing them, compared to immigrants. Our analysis suggests mental health outcomes and service utilization remain a problem in Saskatchewan, especially among equity-seeking groups. This study should help drive mental health service redesign towards a client-centred, integrated, and equity-driven system in Saskatchewan.

Project description:BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a global pandemic. Governments have implemented combinations of "lockdown" measures of various stringencies, including school and workplace closures, cancellations of public events, and restrictions on internal and external movements. These policy interventions are an attempt to shield high-risk individuals and to prevent overwhelming countries' healthcare systems, or, colloquially, "flatten the curve." However, these policy interventions may come with physical and psychological health harms, group and social harms, and opportunity costs. These policies may particularly affect vulnerable populations and not only exacerbate pre-existing inequities but also generate new ones.MethodsWe developed a conceptual framework to identify and categorize adverse effects of COVID-19 lockdown measures. We based our framework on Lorenc and Oliver's framework for the adverse effects of public health interventions and the PROGRESS-Plus equity framework. To test its application, we purposively sampled COVID-19 policy examples from around the world and evaluated them for the potential physical, psychological, and social harms, as well as opportunity costs, in each of the PROGRESS-Plus equity domains: Place of residence, Race/ethnicity, Occupation, Gender/sex, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status, Social capital, Plus (age, and disability).ResultsWe found examples of inequitably distributed adverse effects for each COVID-19 lockdown policy example, stratified by a low- or middle-income country and high-income country, in every PROGRESS-Plus equity domain. We identified the known policy interventions intended to mitigate some of these adverse effects. The same harms (anxiety, depression, food insecurity, loneliness, stigma, violence) appear to be repeated across many groups and are exacerbated by several COVID-19 policy interventions.ConclusionOur conceptual framework highlights the fact that COVID-19 policy interventions can generate or exacerbate interactive and multiplicative equity harms. Applying this framework can help in three ways: (1) identifying the areas where a policy intervention may generate inequitable adverse effects; (2) mitigating the policy and practice interventions by facilitating the systematic examination of relevant evidence; and (3) planning for lifting COVID-19 lockdowns and policy interventions around the world.

Project description:We present a novel approach for exiting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) lockdowns using a 'risk scorecard' to prioritize activities to resume whilst allowing safe reopening. We modelled cases generated in the community/week, incorporating parameters for social distancing, contact tracing and imported cases. We set thresholds for cases and analysed the effect of varying parameters. An online tool to facilitate country-specific use including the modification of parameters (https://sshsphdemos.shinyapps.io/covid_riskbudget/) enables visualization of effects of parameter changes and trade-offs. Local outbreak investigation data from Singapore illustrate this. Setting a threshold of 0.9 mean number of secondary cases arising from a case to keep R < 1, we showed that opening all activities excluding high-risk ones (e.g. nightclubs) allows cases to remain within threshold; while opening high-risk activities would exceed the threshold and result in escalating cases. An 80% reduction in imported cases per week (141 to 29) reduced steady-state cases by 30% (295 to 205). One-off surges in cases (due to superspreading) had no effect on the steady state if the R remains <1. Increasing the effectiveness of contact tracing (probability of a community case being isolated when infectious) by 33% (0.6 to 0.8) reduced cases by 22% (295 to 231). Cases grew exponentially if the product of the mean number of secondary cases arising from a case and (1-probability of case being isolated) was >1. Countries can utilize a 'risk scorecard' to balance relaxations for travel and domestic activity depending on factors that reduce disease impact, including hospital/ICU capacity, contact tracing, quarantine and vaccination. The tool enabled visualization of the combinations of imported cases and activity levels on the case numbers and the trade-offs required. For vaccination, a reduction factor should be applied both for likelihood of an infected case being present and a close contact getting infected.

Project description:Ethnopharmacological relevanceTraditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) has been widely used as an approach worldwide. Chinese Medicines (CMs) had been used to treat and prevent viral infection pneumonia diseases for thousands of years and had accumulated a large number of clinical experiences and effective prescriptions.Aim of the studyThis research aimed to systematically excavate the classical prescriptions of Chinese Medicine (CM), which have been used to prevent and treat Pestilence (Wenbing, Wenyi, Shiyi or Yibing) for long history in China, to obtain the potential prescriptions and ingredients to alternatively treat COVID-19.Materials and methodsWe developed the screening system based on data mining, molecular docking and network pharmacology. Data mining and association network were used to mine the high-frequency herbs and formulas from ancient prescriptions. Virtual screening for the effective components of high frequency CMs and compatibility Chinese Medicine was explored by a molecular docking approach. Furthermore, network pharmacology method was used to preliminarily uncover the molecule mechanism.Results574 prescriptions were obtained from 96,606 classical prescriptions with the key words to treat "Warm diseases (Wenbing)", "Pestilence (Wenyi or Yibing)" or "Epidemic diseases (Shiyi)". Meanwhile, 40 kinds of CMs, 36 CMs-pairs, 6 triple-CMs-groups existed with high frequency among the 574 prescriptions. Additionally, the key targets of SARS-COV-2, namely 3CL hydrolase (Mpro) and angiotensin-converting enzyme 2(ACE2), were used to dock the main ingredients from the 40 kinds by the LigandFitDock method. A total of 66 compounds components with higher frequency were docked with the COVID-19 targets, which were distributed in 26 kinds of CMs, among which Gancao (Glycyrrhizae Radix Et Rhizoma), HuangQin (Scutellariae Radix), Dahuang (Rhei Radix Et Rhizome) and Chaihu (Bupleuri Radix) contain more potential compounds. Network pharmacology results showed that Gancao (Glycyrrhizae Radix Et Rhizoma) and HuangQin (Scutellariae Radix) CMs-pairs could also interact with the targets involving in immune and inflammation diseases.ConclusionsThese results we obtained probably provided potential candidate CMs formulas or active ingredients to overcome COVID-19. Prospectively, animal experiment and rigorous clinic studies are needed to confirm the potential preventive and treat effect of these CMs and compounds.

Project description:The scorecard evaluates the burden and management of osteoporosis in Canada and how care pathways differ across Canadian provinces. The results showed there are inequities in patients' access to diagnosis, treatment, and post-fracture care programs in Canada. Interventions are needed to close the osteoporosis treatment gap and minimize these inequities.IntroductionThe purpose of this study was to develop a visual scorecard that assesses the burden of osteoporosis and its management within Canada and seven Canadian provinces.MethodsWe adapted the Scorecard for Osteoporosis in Europe (SCOPE) to score osteoporosis indicators for Canada and seven provinces (British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland). We obtained data from a comprehensive literature review and interviews with osteoporosis experts. We scored 20 elements across four domains: burden of disease, policy framework, service provision, and service uptake. Each element was scored as red, yellow, or green, indicating high, intermediate, or low risk, respectively. Elements with insufficient data were scored black.ResultsCanada performed well on several elements of osteoporosis care, including high uptake of risk assessment algorithms and minimal wait times for hip fracture surgery. However, there were no established fracture registries, and reporting on individuals with high fracture risk who remain untreated was limited. Furthermore, osteoporosis was not an official health priority in most provinces. Government-backed action plans and other osteoporosis initiatives were primarily confined to Ontario and Alberta. Several provinces (Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, Newfoundland) did not have any registered fracture liaison service (FLS) programs. Access to diagnosis and treatment was also inconsistent and reimbursement policies did not align with clinical guidelines.ConclusionGovernment-backed action plans are needed to address provincial inequities in patients' access to diagnosis, treatment, and FLS programs in Canada. Further characterization of the treatment gap and the establishment of fracture registries are critical next steps in providing high-quality osteoporosis care.

Project description:BackgroundTransparent and accessible reporting of COVID-19 data is critical for public health efforts. Each Indian state has its own mechanism for reporting COVID-19 data, and the quality of their reporting has not been systematically evaluated. We present a comprehensive assessment of the quality of COVID-19 data reporting done by the Indian state governments between 19 May and 1 June, 2020.MethodsWe designed a semi-quantitative framework with 45 indicators to assess the quality of COVID-19 data reporting. The framework captures four key aspects of public health data reporting - availability, accessibility, granularity, and privacy. We used this framework to calculate a COVID-19 Data Reporting Score (CDRS, ranging from 0-1) for each state.ResultsOur results indicate a large disparity in the quality of COVID-19 data reporting across India. CDRS varies from 0.61 (good) in Karnataka to 0.0 (poor) in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, with a median value of 0.26. Ten states do not report data stratified by age, gender, comorbidities or districts. Only ten states provide trend graphics for COVID-19 data. In addition, we identify that Punjab and Chandigarh compromised the privacy of individuals under quarantine by publicly releasing their personally identifiable information. The CDRS is positively associated with the state's sustainable development index for good health and well-being (Pearson correlation: r=0.630,p=0.0003).ConclusionsOur assessment informs the public health efforts in India and serves as a guideline for pandemic data reporting. The disparity in CDRS highlights three important findings at the national, state, and individual level. At the national level, it shows the lack of a unified framework for reporting COVID-19 data in India, and highlights the need for a central agency to monitor or audit the quality of data reporting done by the states. Without a unified framework, it is difficult to aggregate the data from different states, gain insights, and coordinate an effective nationwide response to the pandemic. Moreover, it reflects the inadequacy in coordination or sharing of resources among the states. The disparate reporting score also reflects inequality in individual access to public health information and privacy protection based on the state of residence.