Equity in evidence synthesis: You can't play on broken strings

Tamara Lotfi, Vivian Welch, Jordi P. Pardo, Jennifer Petkovic, Shaun Treweek, Andrea J. Darzi, Rebecca Glover, Declan Devane, Meera Viswanathan, Lawrence Mbuagbaw, Kevin Pottie, Elizabeth Kristjansson, Shahab Sayfi, Lara Maxwell, Olivia Magwood, Damian Francis, Dru Riddle, Beverly Shea, Peter Tugwell
{"title":"Equity in evidence synthesis: You can't play on broken strings","authors":"Tamara Lotfi,&nbsp;Vivian Welch,&nbsp;Jordi P. Pardo,&nbsp;Jennifer Petkovic,&nbsp;Shaun Treweek,&nbsp;Andrea J. Darzi,&nbsp;Rebecca Glover,&nbsp;Declan Devane,&nbsp;Meera Viswanathan,&nbsp;Lawrence Mbuagbaw,&nbsp;Kevin Pottie,&nbsp;Elizabeth Kristjansson,&nbsp;Shahab Sayfi,&nbsp;Lara Maxwell,&nbsp;Olivia Magwood,&nbsp;Damian Francis,&nbsp;Dru Riddle,&nbsp;Beverly Shea,&nbsp;Peter Tugwell","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12091","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In the 2022 Cochrane Lecture [<span>1</span>], Jimmy Volmink, recognized as a pioneer of evidence-based medicine in Africa, challenged Cochrane to enhance its equity efforts and suggested five ways to do so. We, as members of the Campbell and Cochrane Health Equity Thematic group*, fully agree with his suggestions and have developed an actionable plan, described below. We invite the global community to join us in our efforts to meet the equity gaps in research and practice.</p><p>Population health and healthcare delivery should be equitable and the research that guides it equity sensitive. By this, we mean that we need to focus on the distribution of health outcomes in the population not just overall health. That is, people should have equal opportunities for health and are not subjected to systemic discrimination or structural barriers to health. It is an ambitious goal and one that many of us who work in healthcare delivery and health research are striving for.</p><p>This includes those of us who work in evidence synthesis. Synthesizers of other researchers' evidence may think that our handling of equity cannot be better than the handling of equity in the research we synthesize. We, as members of the Campbell and Cochrane Health Equity Thematic Group, disagree. To truly address inequity, evidence synthesis must take into account equity considerations in a systematic and explicit manner, regardless of how equity was addressed in the original research. We believe that evidence synthesis should lead the way in promoting equity, rather than simply reflecting the approaches taken in the primary research that is included in our reviews (Box 1).</p><p>We fully agree that Cochrane cannot succeed in better addressing health equity in systematic reviews without also addressing inequities in its own organization and governance. As members of the Campbell and Cochrane Health Equity Thematic group, we commit to the following actions.</p><p><b>Tamara Lotfi</b>: Conceptualization, writing—original draft, reviewing and editing. <b>Vivian Welch</b>: Conceptualization, writing—original draft, review &amp; editing. <b>Jordi P. Pardo</b>: Conceptualization, writing—original draft, review &amp; editing. <b>Jennifer Petkovic</b>: Conceptualization, writing—original draft, review &amp; editing. <b>Shaun Treweek</b>: Writing—review &amp; editing. <b>Andrea Darzi</b>: Writing—review &amp; editing. <b>Rebecca Glover</b>: Writing—review &amp; editing. <b>Declan Devane</b>: Writing—review &amp; editing. <b>Meera Viswanathan</b>: Writing—review &amp; editing. <b>Lawrence Mbuagbaw</b>: Writing—review &amp; editing. <b>Kevin Pottie</b>: Writing—review &amp; editing. <b>Elizabeth Kristjansson</b>: Writing—review &amp; editing. <b>Shahab Sayfi</b>: Writing—review &amp; editing. <b>Lara Maxwell</b>: Writing—review &amp; editing. <b>Olivia Magwood</b>: Writing—review &amp; editing. <b>Damian Francis</b>: Writing—review &amp; editing. <b>Dru Riddle</b>: Writing—review &amp; editing. <b>Beverly Shea</b>: Writing—review &amp; editing. <b>Peter Tugwell</b>: Conceptualization, writing—original draft, review &amp; editing.</p><p>JPP is a member of the Cochrane Governing Board. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest.</p>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12091","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.12091","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

In the 2022 Cochrane Lecture [1], Jimmy Volmink, recognized as a pioneer of evidence-based medicine in Africa, challenged Cochrane to enhance its equity efforts and suggested five ways to do so. We, as members of the Campbell and Cochrane Health Equity Thematic group*, fully agree with his suggestions and have developed an actionable plan, described below. We invite the global community to join us in our efforts to meet the equity gaps in research and practice.

Population health and healthcare delivery should be equitable and the research that guides it equity sensitive. By this, we mean that we need to focus on the distribution of health outcomes in the population not just overall health. That is, people should have equal opportunities for health and are not subjected to systemic discrimination or structural barriers to health. It is an ambitious goal and one that many of us who work in healthcare delivery and health research are striving for.

This includes those of us who work in evidence synthesis. Synthesizers of other researchers' evidence may think that our handling of equity cannot be better than the handling of equity in the research we synthesize. We, as members of the Campbell and Cochrane Health Equity Thematic Group, disagree. To truly address inequity, evidence synthesis must take into account equity considerations in a systematic and explicit manner, regardless of how equity was addressed in the original research. We believe that evidence synthesis should lead the way in promoting equity, rather than simply reflecting the approaches taken in the primary research that is included in our reviews (Box 1).

We fully agree that Cochrane cannot succeed in better addressing health equity in systematic reviews without also addressing inequities in its own organization and governance. As members of the Campbell and Cochrane Health Equity Thematic group, we commit to the following actions.

Tamara Lotfi: Conceptualization, writing—original draft, reviewing and editing. Vivian Welch: Conceptualization, writing—original draft, review & editing. Jordi P. Pardo: Conceptualization, writing—original draft, review & editing. Jennifer Petkovic: Conceptualization, writing—original draft, review & editing. Shaun Treweek: Writing—review & editing. Andrea Darzi: Writing—review & editing. Rebecca Glover: Writing—review & editing. Declan Devane: Writing—review & editing. Meera Viswanathan: Writing—review & editing. Lawrence Mbuagbaw: Writing—review & editing. Kevin Pottie: Writing—review & editing. Elizabeth Kristjansson: Writing—review & editing. Shahab Sayfi: Writing—review & editing. Lara Maxwell: Writing—review & editing. Olivia Magwood: Writing—review & editing. Damian Francis: Writing—review & editing. Dru Riddle: Writing—review & editing. Beverly Shea: Writing—review & editing. Peter Tugwell: Conceptualization, writing—original draft, review & editing.

JPP is a member of the Cochrane Governing Board. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest.

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
证据合成中的公平:断弦不能弹
在 2022 年的科克伦讲座[1]中,被公认为非洲循证医学先驱的吉米-沃尔明克(Jimmy Volmink)向科克伦提出挑战,要求其加强公平工作,并提出了五种方法。作为坎贝尔和科克伦健康公平专题小组*的成员,我们完全同意他的建议,并制定了如下可行计划。我们邀请全球社会与我们一起努力,弥补研究与实践中的公平差距。我们的意思是,我们需要关注健康结果在人口中的分布,而不仅仅是整体健康。也就是说,人们应享有平等的健康机会,不受系统性歧视或结构性健康障碍的影响。这是一个雄心勃勃的目标,也是我们中许多从事医疗保健服务和健康研究的人正在努力实现的目标。综合其他研究人员证据的人可能会认为,我们对公平的处理不可能比我们综合的研究对公平的处理更好。作为坎贝尔与科克伦健康公平专题小组的成员,我们对此不敢苟同。要真正解决不公平问题,无论原始研究中如何处理公平问题,证据综述都必须以系统、明确的方式考虑公平因素。我们完全同意,如果不解决自身组织和管理中的不公平问题,科克伦就无法在系统性综述中更好地解决健康公平问题。作为 Campbell 和 Cochrane 健康公平专题小组的成员,我们承诺采取以下行动:构思、撰写初稿、审阅和编辑。薇薇安-韦尔奇构思、撰写初稿、审阅和编辑。Jordi P. Pardo:概念化、撰写-原稿、审阅和编辑。Jennifer Petkovic:构思、撰写-原稿、审阅和编辑。肖恩-特鲁维克撰写、审阅和编辑安德烈娅-达尔齐写作-审阅和编辑丽贝卡-格洛弗撰稿-审核-编辑迪克兰-德文撰稿-审核-编辑梅拉-维斯瓦纳坦撰稿-审核-编辑劳伦斯-姆布阿格巴乌撰稿-审核-编辑凯文-波蒂撰写-审核-编辑伊丽莎白-克里斯詹森(Elizabeth Kristjansson):撰稿-审稿和编辑。沙哈布-赛菲撰写-审核-编辑劳拉-麦克斯韦尔撰写-审核-编辑奥利维亚-麦格伍德撰稿-审核-编辑达米安-弗朗西斯撰稿-审核-编辑德鲁-里德尔撰写-审核-编辑贝弗利-谢:撰稿-审核-编辑彼得-塔格韦尔JPP 是 Cochrane 理事会成员。其余作者声明无利益冲突。
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