Performance and Resource Requirements of In-Person, Voice Call, and Automated Telephone-Based Socioeconomic Data Collection Modalities for Community-Based Health Programs: A Systematic Review.

Importance: Gathering data on socioeconomic status (SES) is a prerequisite for health programs that aim to improve equity. There is a lack of evidence on which approaches offer the best combination of reliability, cost, and acceptability. Objective: To compare the performance of different approaches to gathering data on SES in community health programs. Data Sources: A search of the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and OpenGrey from 1999 to June 29, 2021, was conducted, with no language limits. Google Scholar was also searched and the reference lists of included articles were checked to identify further studies. The search was performed on June 29, 2021. Study Selection: Any empirical study design was eligible if it compared 2 or more modalities to elicit SES data from the following 3 categories: in-person, voice call, or automated telephone-based systems. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full-text articles and extracted data. They also assessed the risk of bias using Cochrane tools and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Findings were synthesized thematically without meta-analysis. Main Outcomes and Measures: Response rate, equivalence, time, costs, and acceptability to patients and health care professionals. Results: The searches returned 3943 records. The 11 included studies reported data on 14 036 individuals from 7 countries, collecting data on 11 socioeconomic domains using 2 or more of the following modes: in-person surveys, computer-assisted telephone interviews (CATIs), and 2 types of automated data collection: interactive voice response calls (IVRs) and web surveys. Response rates were greater than 80% for all modes except IVRs. Equivalence was high across all modes (Cohen κ > 0.5). There were insufficient data to make robust time and cost comparisons. Patients reported high levels of acceptability providing data via IVRs, web surveys, and CATIs. Conclusions and Relevance: Selecting an appropriate and cost-effective modality to elicit SES data is an important first step toward advancing equitable effective service coverage. This systematic review did not identify evidence that remote and automated data collection modes differed from human-led and in-person approaches in terms of reliability, cost, or acceptability.

Barriers to accessing health care among young people in 30 low-middle income countries.

Background: Previous studies focusing on high-income countries have shown that young people often face greater barriers to accessing healthcare than older adults. However, in low-middle income countries (LMICs), there have been a paucity of cross-country, quantitative studies highlighting these barriers. Aim: This exploratory study aims to provide a scoping review of the publicly available Demographic and Heath Survey (DHS) data with a view to form the basis for further work. Materials and methods: Data on insurance coverage, agency, and access to evidence-based family planning from 30 countries in the DHS were compared between age groups. Data on 586,250 participants 15-24 years (33% male) and 854,660 participants 25-49 years (16% male) from 30 LMICs were analyzed. Results: Significantly greater barriers to accessing healthcare were observed across six variables in younger population when compared to older adults across all survey questions with an average of 8.4% point difference. Also, there was wide country-level variation: the maximum differences between age groups were 33% points; Rwanda was the only country with no age differences. Discussion: This study highlights several possible themes for future research into improving access to healthcare for young people. These themes include more detailed evaluation of country-specific policies to reduced barriers to healthcare for young people and further research into the causative factors that can influence healthcare utilization by young people. Conclusion: Our analysis showcases increased barriers to healthcare access for young people in LMICs. We argue that they can only be improved by targeted policies and direct community engagement.

Performance and resource requirements of in-person versus voice call versus automated telephone-based socioeconomic data collection modalities for community-based health programmes: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Gathering data on socioeconomic status (SES) is a prerequisite for any health programme that aims to assess and improve the equitable distribution of its outcomes. Many different modalities can be used to collect SES data, ranging from (1) face-to-face elicitation, to (2) telephone-administered questionnaires, to (3) automated text message-based systems. The relative costs and perceived benefits to patients and providers of these different data collection approaches is unknown. This protocol is for a systematic review that aims to compare the resource requirements, performance characteristics, and acceptability to participants and service providers of these three approaches to collect SES data from those enrolled in health programmes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: An information specialist will conduct searches on the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO ICTRP and OpenGrey. All databases will be searched from 1999 to present with no language limits used. We will also search Google Scholar and check the reference lists of relevant articles for further potentially eligible studies. Any empirical study design will be eligible if it compares two or more modalities to elicit SES data from the following three; in-person, voice call, or automated phone-based systems. Two reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts and full-text articles; and complete data extraction. For each study, we will extract data on the modality characteristics, primary outcomes (response rate and equivalence) and secondary outcomes (time, costs and acceptability to patients and providers). We will synthesise findings thematically without meta-analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required, as our review will include published and publicly accessible data. This review is part of a project to improve equitable access to eye care services in low-ioncome and middle-income countries. However, the findings will be useful to policy-makers and programme managers in a range of health settings and non-health settings. We will publish our findings in a peer-reviewed journal and develop an accessible summary of results for website posting and stakeholder meetings. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021251959.

Variability in COVID-19 in-hospital mortality rates between national health service trusts and regions in England: A national observational study for the Getting It Right First Time Programme.

BACKGROUND: A key first step in optimising COVID-19 patient outcomes during future case-surges is to learn from the experience within individual hospitals during the early stages of the pandemic. The aim of this study was to investigate the extent of variation in COVID-19 outcomes between National Health Service (NHS) hospital trusts and regions in England using data from March-July 2020. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational study using the Hospital Episode Statistics administrative dataset. Patients aged ≥ 18 years who had a diagnosis of COVID-19 during a hospital stay in England that was completed between March 1st and July 31st, 2020 were included. In-hospital mortality was the primary outcome of interest. In secondary analysis, critical care admission, length of stay and mortality within 30 days of discharge were also investigated. Multilevel logistic regression was used to adjust for covariates. FINDINGS: There were 86,356 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 included in the study, of whom 22,944 (26.6%) died in hospital with COVID-19 as the primary cause of death. After adjusting for covariates, the extent of the variation in-hospital mortality rates between hospital trusts and regions was relatively modest. Trusts with the largest baseline number of beds and a greater proportion of patients admitted to critical care had the lowest in-hospital mortality rates. INTERPRETATION: There is little evidence of clustering of deaths within hospital trusts. There may be opportunities to learn from the experience of individual trusts to help prepare hospitals for future case-surges.

Are methodological quality and completeness of reporting associated with citation-based measures of publication impact? A secondary analysis of a systematic review of dementia biomarker studies.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether methodological and reporting quality are associated with surrogate measures of publication impact in the field of dementia biomarker studies. METHODS: We assessed dementia biomarker studies included in a previous systematic review in terms of methodological and reporting quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) and Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD), respectively. We extracted additional study and journal-related data from each publication to account for factors shown to be associated with impact in previous research. We explored associations between potential determinants and measures of publication impact in univariable and stepwise multivariable linear regression analyses. OUTCOME MEASURES: We aimed to collect data on four measures of publication impact: two traditional measures-average number of citations per year and 5-year impact factor of the publishing journal and two alternative measures-the Altmetric Attention Score and counts of electronic downloads. RESULTS: The systematic review included 142 studies. Due to limited data, Altmetric Attention Scores and electronic downloads were excluded from the analysis, leaving traditional metrics as the only analysed outcome measures. We found no relationship between QUADAS and traditional metrics. Citation rates were independently associated with 5-year journal impact factor (ß=0.42; p<0.001), journal subject area (ß=0.39; p<0.001), number of years since publication (ß=-0.29; p<0.001) and STARD (ß=0.13; p<0.05). Independent determinants of 5-year journal impact factor were citation rates (ß=0.45; p<0.001), statement on conflict of interest (ß=0.22; p<0.01) and baseline sample size (ß=0.15; p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Citation rates and 5-year journal impact factor appear to measure different dimensions of impact. Citation rates were weakly associated with completeness of reporting, while neither traditional metric was related to methodological rigour. Our results suggest that high publication usage and journal outlet is not a guarantee of quality and readers should critically appraise all papers regardless of presumed impact.

A comparison of the effects of oral vs. intravenous hydration on subclinical acute kidney injury in living kidney donors: a protocol of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Optimal treatment for established renal failure is living donor kidney transplantation. However this pathway exposes healthy individuals to significant reduction in nephron mass via major surgical procedure. Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is now the most common method for live donor transplantation, reducing both donor post-operative pain and recovery time. However this procedure exposes kidneys to additional haemodynamic stresses. It has been suggested that donor hydration-particularly the use of preoperative intravenous fluids-may counteract these stresses, reducing subclinical acute kidney injury and ultimately improving long-term renal function. This may be important in both preservation of donor renal function and recipient graft longevity. METHODS/DESIGN: A prospective single-centre single-blinded randomized controlled trial will be carried out to determine the effects of donor preoperative intravenous fluids. The primary outcome is donor subclinical acute kidney injury (defined as plasma NGAL, >153 ng/ml) on day 1 postoperatively. Secondary outcomes include intraoperative haemodynamics, recipient subclinical acute kidney injury, perioperative complications and donor sleep quality. Donors will be randomised into two groups: the intervention group will receive active pre-hydration consisting of three litres of intravenous Hartmann's solution between midnight and 8 am before morning kidney donation, while the control group will not receive this. Both groups will receive unlimited oral fluids until midnight, as is routine. Plasma NGAL will be measured at pre-specified perioperative time points, intraoperative haemodynamic data will be collected using non-invasive cardiac output monitoring and clinical notes will be used to obtain demographic and clinical data. The researcher will be blinded to the donor fluid hydration status. Blinded statistical analysis will be performed on an intention-to-treat basis. A prospective power calculation estimates a required sample size of 86 patients. DISCUSSION: This study will provide important data, as there is currently little evidence about the use of donor preoperative fluids in laparoscopic nephrectomy. It is hoped that the results obtained will guide future clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study has been approved by the West of Scotland Research Ethics Committee 3 (reference no. 14/WS/1160, 27 January 2015) and is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register (reference no. ISRCTN10199225 , 20 April 2015).