Dataset Information

Dental Health Inequalities among Indigenous Populations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to document the disparity in dental caries experiences among indigenous and nonindigenous populations globally by measuring dental caries prevalence and severity. An electronic database (MEDLINE) was initially searched using relevant keywords. This was followed by use of the search string in the following electronic databases: Scopus, EBSCOhost, Cochrane, and Open Grey. Two independent reviewers conducted the study search and screening, quality assessment, and data extraction, which was facilitated using JBI SUMARI software. The primary outcome was the decayed missing filled teeth (DMFT) score and dental caries prevalence. Subgroup analysis was done by country of publication to identify causes of heterogeneity. Forest plots were used with the standardized mean difference (SMD) and publication bias was assessed using the Egger test with funnel plot construction. For the final review, 43 articles were selected and 34 were meta-analyzed. The pooled mean DMFT for both the permanent dentition (SMD = 0.26; 95% CI 0.13-0.39) and deciduous dentition (SMD = 0.67; 95% CI 0.47-0.87) was higher for the Indigenous population than for the general population. Indigenous populations experienced more decayed teeth (SMD = 0.44; 95% CI 0.25-0.62), a slightly higher number of missing teeth (SMD = 0.11< 95% CI -0.05 to 0.26), and lesser filled teeth (SMD = -0.04; 95% CI -0.20 to 0.13) than their nonindigenous counterparts. The prevalence of dental caries (SMD = 0.27; 95% CI 0.13-0.41) was higher among indigenous people. Globally, indigenous populations have a higher caries prevalence and severity than nonindigenous populations. The factors which have led to such inequities need to be examined.

SUBMITTER: Nath S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8491513 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundBreast cancer is the most common female cancer in Africa. Receptor-defined subtypes are a major determinant of treatment options and disease outcomes but there is considerable uncertainty regarding the frequency of poor prognosis estrogen receptor (ER) negative subtypes in Africa. We systematically reviewed publications reporting on the frequency of breast cancer receptor-defined subtypes in indigenous populations in Africa.Methods and findingsMedline, Embase, and Global Health were searched for studies published between 1st January 1980 and 15th April 2014. Reported proportions of ER positive (ER+), progesterone receptor positive (PR+), and human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 positive (HER2+) disease were extracted and 95% CI calculated. Random effects meta-analyses were used to pool estimates. Fifty-four studies from North Africa (n=12,284 women with breast cancer) and 26 from sub-Saharan Africa (n=4,737) were eligible. There was marked between-study heterogeneity in the ER+ estimates in both regions (I2>90%), with the majority reporting proportions between 0.40 and 0.80 in North Africa and between 0.20 and 0.70 in sub-Saharan Africa. Similarly, large between-study heterogeneity was observed for PR+ and HER2+ estimates (I2>80%, in all instances). Meta-regression analyses showed that the proportion of ER+ disease was 10% (4%-17%) lower for studies based on archived tumor blocks rather than prospectively collected specimens, and 9% (2%-17%) lower for those with ? 40% versus those with <40% grade 3 tumors. For prospectively collected samples, the pooled proportions for ER+ and triple negative tumors were 0.59 (0.56-0.62) and 0.21 (0.17-0.25), respectively, regardless of region. Limitations of the study include the lack of standardized procedures across the various studies; the low methodological quality of many studies in terms of the representativeness of their case series and the quality of the procedures for collection, fixation, and receptor testing; and the possibility that women with breast cancer may have contributed to more than one study.ConclusionsThe published data from the more appropriate prospectively measured specimens are consistent with the majority of breast cancers in Africa being ER+. As no single subtype dominates in the continent availability of receptor testing should be a priority, especially for young women with early stage disease where appropriate receptor-specific treatment modalities offer the greatest potential for reducing years of life lost. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

Project description:BackgroundIntervention-generated inequalities are unintended variations in outcome that result from the organisation and delivery of health interventions. Socioeconomic inequalities in treatment may occur for some common cancers. Although the incidence and outcome of lung cancer varies with socioeconomic position (SEP), it is not known whether socioeconomic inequalities in treatment occur and how these might affect mortality. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of existing research on socioeconomic inequalities in receipt of treatment for lung cancer.Methods and findingsMEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scopus were searched up to September 2012 for cohort studies of participants with a primary diagnosis of lung cancer (ICD10 C33 or C34), where the outcome was receipt of treatment (rates or odds of receiving treatment) and where the outcome was reported by a measure of SEP. Forty-six papers met the inclusion criteria, and 23 of these papers were included in meta-analysis. Socioeconomic inequalities in receipt of lung cancer treatment were observed. Lower SEP was associated with a reduced likelihood of receiving any treatment (odds ratio [OR]?=?0.79 [95% CI 0.73 to 0.86], p<0.001), surgery (OR?=?0.68 [CI 0.63 to 0.75], p<0.001) and chemotherapy (OR?=?0.82 [95% CI 0.72 to 0.93], p?=?0.003), but not radiotherapy (OR?=?0.99 [95% CI 0.86 to 1.14], p?=?0.89), for lung cancer. The association remained when stage was taken into account for receipt of surgery, and was found in both universal and non-universal health care systems.ConclusionsPatients with lung cancer living in more socioeconomically deprived circumstances are less likely to receive any type of treatment, surgery, and chemotherapy. These inequalities cannot be accounted for by socioeconomic differences in stage at presentation or by differences in health care system. Further investigation is required to determine the patient, tumour, clinician, and system factors that may contribute to socioeconomic inequalities in receipt of lung cancer treatment.

Project description:BackgroundIncreasing patient engagement in healthcare has become a health policy priority. However, there has been concern that promoting supported shared decision-making could increase health inequalities.ObjectiveTo evaluate the impact of SDM interventions on disadvantaged groups and health inequalities.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and observational studies.Data sourcesCINAHL, the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, HMIC, MEDLINE, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Open SIGLE, PsycINFO and Web of Knowledge were searched from inception until June 2012.Study eligibility criteriaWe included all studies, without language restriction, that met the following two criteria: (1) assess the effect of shared decision-making interventions on disadvantaged groups and/or health inequalities, (2) include at least 50% of people from disadvantaged groups, except if a separate analysis was conducted for this group.ResultsWe included 19 studies and pooled 10 in a meta-analysis. The meta-analyses showed a moderate positive effect of shared decision-making interventions on disadvantaged patients. The narrative synthesis suggested that, overall, SDM interventions increased knowledge, informed choice, participation in decision-making, decision self-efficacy, preference for collaborative decision making and reduced decisional conflict among disadvantaged patients. Further, 7 out of 19 studies compared the intervention's effect between high and low literacy groups. Overall, SDM interventions seemed to benefit disadvantaged groups (e.g. lower literacy) more than those with higher literacy, education and socioeconomic status. Interventions that were tailored to disadvantaged groups' needs appeared most effective.ConclusionResults indicate that shared decision-making interventions significantly improve outcomes for disadvantaged patients. According to the narrative synthesis, SDM interventions may be more beneficial to disadvantaged groups than higher literacy/socioeconomic status patients. However, given the small sample sizes and variety in the intervention types, study design and quality, those findings should be interpreted with caution.

Dataset Information

Dental Health Inequalities among Indigenous Populations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets