Reporting of equity in observational epidemiology: A methodological review.

Background: Observational studies can inform how we understand and address persisting health inequities through the collection, reporting and analysis of health equity factors. However, the extent to which the analysis and reporting of equity-relevant aspects in observational research are generally unknown. Thus, we aimed to systematically evaluate how equity-relevant observational studies reported equity considerations in the study design and analyses. Methods: We searched MEDLINE for health equity-relevant observational studies from January 2020 to March 2022, resulting in 16 828 articles. We randomly selected 320 studies, ensuring a balance in focus on populations experiencing inequities, country income settings, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) topic. We extracted information on study design and analysis methods. Results: The bulk of the studies were conducted in North America (n = 95, 30%), followed by Europe and Central Asia (n = 55, 17%). Half of the studies (n = 171, 53%) addressed general health and well-being, while 49 (15%) focused on mental health conditions. Two-thirds of the studies (n = 220, 69%) were cross-sectional. Eight (3%) engaged with populations experiencing inequities, while 22 (29%) adapted recruitment methods to reach these populations. Further, 67 studies (21%) examined interaction effects primarily related to race or ethnicity (48%). Two-thirds of the studies (72%) adjusted for characteristics associated with inequities, and 18 studies (6%) used flow diagrams to depict how populations experiencing inequities progressed throughout the studies. Conclusions: Despite over 80% of the equity-focused observational studies providing a rationale for a focus on health equity, reporting of study design features relevant to health equity ranged from 0-95%, with over half of the items reported by less than one-quarter of studies. This methodological study is a baseline assessment to inform the development of an equity-focussed reporting guideline for observational studies as an extension of the well-known Strengthening Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline.

A protocol for a pilot cluster randomized control trial of e-vouchers and mobile phone application to enhance access to maternal health services in Cameroon.

BACKGROUND: Cameroon still has relatively high maternal mortality rate (MMR) of 596/100,000 live births. Approximately 40% of births are unattended by skilled healthcare personnel with high out-of-pocket expenditures. Poor resource allocation, poorly functioning referral systems, long trekking distances to health facilities, all of which lead to low rates of use of maternal health services. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this pilot study is to explore perception and acceptability of mobile health (mhealth) and e-voucher and to determine the feasibility of conducting a large cluster randomized trial to determine the effects of combining e-vouchers and a mobile application compared with usual care in improving access to and use of maternal health services. METHODS: This is a multimethod study that comprises two phases. The first phase is the development of the mobile phone app, which includes a qualitative formative study through in-depth key informant interviews and focus group discussions. The second phase is a cluster randomized control trial assessing the combination of e-vouchers and a mobile application compared with usual care in improving access to and use of maternal health services. Feasibility will be determined based on evaluating randomization, contamination, enrollment rate, complete follow up, compliance rate, success in matching data from different sources, and data completeness. ETHICS AND DISCUSSION: Ethics approval has been granted, and the trial has been registered in the Pan-African Clinical Trials Registry. We will disseminate our findings through peer-reviewed manuscripts and conference presentations. Findings from this study will inform the design and conduct of a larger randomized trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PACTR201808703097367. The trial on the Pan African Clinical Trials Registry.

Grand Challenges Canada: inappropriate emphasis and missed opportunities in global health research?

In May 2010, Grand Challenges Canada (GCC) was launched with the mandate to identify global challenges in health that could be supported through the Government of Canada's Development Innovations Fund (DIF: $225 million over five years). The GCC offers a potentially excellent mechanism for taking Canada's participation in global health challenges "to a higher level". Recent GCC announcements raise new questions about the emphasis being placed on technological discovery or "catalytic" research. Missing so far are opportunities that the Fund could offer in order to support innovative research addressing i) health systems strengthening, ii) more effective delivery of existing interventions, and iii) policies and programs that address broader social determinants of health. The Canadian Grand Challenges announced to date risk pushing to the sidelines good translational and implementation science and early career-stage scientists addressing important social, environmental and political conditions that affect disease prevalence, progress and treatment; and the many unresolved challenges faced in bringing to scale proven interventions within resource-constrained health systems. We wish to register our concern at the apparent prioritization of biotechnical innovation research and the subordination of the social, environmental, economic and political context in which human health is either protected or eroded.

The impact of global inequities on health professional migration.

Health determinants and how they are distributed have an important impact on health systems around the world. Nurses can play a significant role in mediating the effects of many of these determinants both inside the health care system and outside. Yet the areas that have the greatest health inequities and heaviest disease burdens have the fewest health workers. A number of efforts are underway to understand and manage health care worker migration. Intersectoral collaboration is key, as are other factors necessary to build strong health systems, including research for development, capacity-building, integrated health systems, evidence-based decision-making, a strong and vibrant civil society and accountability and transparency in the public and private sectors.

The role of NGOs in global health research for development.

BACKGROUND: Global health research is essential for development. A major issue is the inequitable distribution of research efforts and funds directed towards populations suffering the world's greatest health problems. This imbalance is fostering major attempts at redirecting research to the health problems of low and middle income countries. Following the creation of the Coalition for Global Health Research - Canada (CGHRC) in 2001, the Canadian Society for International Health (CSIH) decided to review the role of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in global health research. This paper highlights some of the prevalent thinking and is intended to encourage new thinking on how NGOs can further this role. APPROACH: This paper was prepared by members of the Research Committee of the CSIH, with input from other members of the Society. Persons working in various international NGOs participated in individual interviews or group discussions on their involvement in different types of research activities. Case studies illustrate the roles of NGOs in global health research, their perceived strengths and weaknesses, and the constraints and opportunities to build capacity and develop partnerships for research. HIGHLIGHTS: NGOs are contributing at all stages of the research cycle, fostering the relevance and effectiveness of the research, priority setting, and knowledge translation to action. They have a key role in stewardship (promoting and advocating for relevant global health research), resource mobilization for research, the generation, utilization and management of knowledge, and capacity development. Yet, typically, the involvement of NGOs in research is downstream from knowledge production and it usually takes the form of a partnership with universities or dedicated research agencies. CONCLUSION: There is a need to more effectively include NGOs in all aspects of health research in order to maximize the potential benefits of research. NGOs, moreover, can and should play an instrumental role in coalitions for global health research, such as the CGHRC. With a renewed sense of purpose and a common goal, NGOs and their partners intend to make strong and lasting inroads into reducing the disease burden of the world's most affected populations through effective research action.