Consideration of health inequity in systematic reviews and primary studies on risk factors for hearing loss

Simon Briscoe, Elizabeth Shaw, Michael Nunns, Hassanat Lawal, Noreen Orr, Jo Thompson Coon, Ruth Garside, G. J. Melendez-Torres
{"title":"Consideration of health inequity in systematic reviews and primary studies on risk factors for hearing loss","authors":"Simon Briscoe,&nbsp;Elizabeth Shaw,&nbsp;Michael Nunns,&nbsp;Hassanat Lawal,&nbsp;Noreen Orr,&nbsp;Jo Thompson Coon,&nbsp;Ruth Garside,&nbsp;G. J. Melendez-Torres","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12052","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Health inequities are systematic, avoidable, and unfair differences in health between populations or population subgroups. There is increased recognition of the need for systematic reviews (SRs) to address health inequities, including drawing out findings relevant to low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The aim of this study was to determine the extent to which SRs on risk factors for hearing loss reported findings associated with health inequities, and the extent to which this data was captured in the primary studies included within these SRs.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We identified SRs on risk factors for hearing loss from a report on this topic which included a systematic search for relevant SRs. SRs thus identified were inspected for data related to health inequity with reference to PROGRESS-Plus. We compared how data were reported in SRs versus within primary studies included in the SRs, and the extent to which primary studies from LMICs were represented.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>We included 17 SRs which reported findings on a variety of physiological, behavioral, demographic, and environmental risk factors for hearing loss. There were 296 unique primary studies included in the SRs, of which 251 (81.49%) were successfully retrieved. Data relating to health inequities was reported relatively infrequently in the SRs and mainly focused on gender and age. Data related to health inequities was more frequently reported in primary studies. However, several PROGRESS-Plus criteria were only reported in a minority of primary studies. Approximately one-third of primary studies were from LMICs.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>There is scope to improve the reporting of data relating to health inequities in primary studies on risk factors for hearing loss. However, SR authors could do more to report health inequities than is currently undertaken, including drawing out findings relevant to LMICs where data are available.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12052","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cesm.12052","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Health inequities are systematic, avoidable, and unfair differences in health between populations or population subgroups. There is increased recognition of the need for systematic reviews (SRs) to address health inequities, including drawing out findings relevant to low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The aim of this study was to determine the extent to which SRs on risk factors for hearing loss reported findings associated with health inequities, and the extent to which this data was captured in the primary studies included within these SRs.

Methods

We identified SRs on risk factors for hearing loss from a report on this topic which included a systematic search for relevant SRs. SRs thus identified were inspected for data related to health inequity with reference to PROGRESS-Plus. We compared how data were reported in SRs versus within primary studies included in the SRs, and the extent to which primary studies from LMICs were represented.

Results

We included 17 SRs which reported findings on a variety of physiological, behavioral, demographic, and environmental risk factors for hearing loss. There were 296 unique primary studies included in the SRs, of which 251 (81.49%) were successfully retrieved. Data relating to health inequities was reported relatively infrequently in the SRs and mainly focused on gender and age. Data related to health inequities was more frequently reported in primary studies. However, several PROGRESS-Plus criteria were only reported in a minority of primary studies. Approximately one-third of primary studies were from LMICs.

Conclusions

There is scope to improve the reporting of data relating to health inequities in primary studies on risk factors for hearing loss. However, SR authors could do more to report health inequities than is currently undertaken, including drawing out findings relevant to LMICs where data are available.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在关于听力损失风险因素的系统回顾和初步研究中考虑健康不平等问题
背景 健康不公平是指人口或人口亚群之间存在的系统性、可避免和不公平的健康差异。越来越多的人认识到需要通过系统综述(SR)来解决健康不公平问题,包括得出与中低收入国家(LMIC)相关的研究结果。本研究旨在确定有关听力损失风险因素的系统综述在多大程度上报告了与健康不平等相关的研究结果,以及这些系统综述所包含的主要研究在多大程度上获取了这些数据。 方法 我们从一份有关听力损失风险因素的报告中确定了SR,该报告包括对相关SR的系统搜索。我们参照 PROGRESS-Plus,检查了由此确定的 SR 中与健康不公平相关的数据。我们比较了 SR 中报告数据的方式与 SR 中包含的主要研究中报告数据的方式,以及来自低收入国家的主要研究的代表性。 结果 我们收录了 17 项 SR,这些 SR 报告了有关听力损失的各种生理、行为、人口和环境风险因素的研究结果。共有 296 项独特的主要研究被纳入了 SR,其中 251 项(81.49%)被成功检索到。与健康不平等相关的数据在 SR 中的报道相对较少,主要集中在性别和年龄方面。与健康不平等相关的数据在初级研究中报告得更多。然而,只有少数初级研究报告了几项 PROGRESS-Plus 标准。约有三分之一的初级研究来自低收入和中等收入国家。 结论 在有关听力损失风险因素的初级研究中,与健康不平等相关的数据报告还有改进的余地。不过,SR 的作者在报告健康不平等方面可以比目前做得更多,包括在有数据的情况下引出与低收入、中等收入国家相关的研究结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Methodological and reporting quality of systematic and rapid reviews on human mpox and their utility during a public health emergency Issue Information “Interest-holders”: A new term to replace “stakeholders” in the context of health research and policy Empowering the future of evidence-based healthcare: The Cochrane Early Career Professionals Network Issue Information
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1