Informing the GRADE evidence to decision process with health equity considerations: demonstration from the Canadian rheumatoid arthritis care context

Embracing unity at OMERACT: Valuing equity, promoting diversity, fostering inclusivity

OBJECTIVE

To increase awareness and understanding of the principles of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusivity (EDI) within Outcome Measures in Rheumatology's (OMERACT) members. For this, we aimed to obtain ideas on how to promote and foster these principles within the organization and determine the diversity of the current membership in order to focus future efforts.

METHODS

We held a plenary workshop session at OMERACT 2023 with roundtable discussions on barriers and solutions to increased diversity within OMERACT. We conducted an anonymous, web-based survey of members to record characteristics including population group, gender identity, education level, age, and ability.

RESULTS

The workshop generated ideas to increase diversity of participants across the themes of building relationships [12 topics], materials and methods [5 topics], and conference-specific [6 topics]. Four hundred and seven people responded to the survey (25 % response rate). The majority of respondents were White (75 %), female (61 %), university-educated (94 %), Christian (42 %), spoke English at home (60 %), aged 35 to 55 years (50 %), and did not report a disability (64 %).

CONCLUSION

OMERACT is committed to improving its diversity. Next steps include strategic recruitment of members to the EDI working group, drafting an EDI mission statement centering equity and inclusivity in the organization, and developing guidance for the OMERACT Handbook to help all working groups create actionable plans for promoting EDI principles.

Poor reporting limited consideration of EDI in the Australian guidelines for the clinical care of people with COVID-19

OBJECTIVES

Actively addressing issues of equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) in healthcare guidelines provides an important avenue ensure that individuals and communities receive high-quality healthcare that meets their needs. In 2020, the National Clinical Evidence Taskforce was charged with developing Australian living guidelines for COVID-19 (the Guidelines). It was intended that the Guidelines would consider the biological and social determinants of health (BSDH) underpinning evidence-based recommendations for of the treatment of COVID-19. The objective of this paper is to describe the evidence available on BSDH that is reported in published trials of disease-modifying therapies for COVID-19.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Published papers of randomized controlled trials that informed clinical recommendations (for and against drug therapies for COVID-19) in the Guidelines were reviewed retrospectively using a case series design. We extracted reported characteristics relating to BSDH. These included age, sex, gender, geographical location, ethnicity (including indigenous), disability, migrant status, income, education, employment, and social support. A descriptive analysis was conducted to illustrate the characteristics available for use in guideline development.

RESULTS

A total of 115 peer-reviewed papers describing randomized control trials of drug interventions for the treatment of COVID-19 were included. BSDH characteristics were poorly reported. Geographical location of the study was the only category reported in all papers. While age and sex were reported in most papers (n = 109 and 108, respectively), ethnicity was reported in only one-third of papers (n = 40), social support was reported in only three papers, and employment in one paper. No paper reported on gender, disability, migrant status, income, or education.

CONCLUSION

Consideration of EDI issues is a crucial component of guideline development. Although these issues were widely recognized to impact on health outcomes from COVID-19, reporting of these characteristics was poor in COVID trials. Urgent action is needed to improve reporting of EDI characteristics if they are to be meaningfully considered in guideline processes, and health inequity is overcome.

How Do We Treat Our Male and Female Patients? - A primer on Gender-Based Health Care Inequities

Health is a fundamental human right, yet disparities in healthcare, based on gender, persist for women. These inequities stem from a patriarchal society that has regarded men as the default standard, leading to women being treated merely as smaller men. Contributing to these disparities are the gender stereotypes that pervade our society. Women possess differences in anatomy, physiology, psychology and social experience than men. To achieve health equity, it is vital to understand and be open to consider and evaluate these aspects in each individual patient. This requires an understanding of our own biases and a commitment to valuing diversity in both patient and caregiver. Improving equity and diversity throughout all aspects of the medical system will be necessary to provide optimal patient care for all.

Operationalizing the GRADE-equity criterion to inform guideline recommendations: application to a medical cannabis guideline

OBJECTIVES

Incorporating health equity considerations into guideline development often requires information beyond that gathered through traditional evidence synthesis methodology. This article outlines an operationalization plan for the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE)-equity criterion to gather and assess evidence from primary studies within systematic reviews, enhancing guideline recommendations to promote equity. We demonstrate its use in a clinical guideline on medical cannabis for chronic pain.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We reviewed GRADE guidance and resources recommended by team members regarding the use of evidence for equity considerations, drafted an operationalization plan, and iteratively refined it through team discussion and feedback and piloted it on a medicinal cannabis guideline.

RESULTS

We propose a seven-step approach: 1) identify disadvantaged populations, 2) examine available data for specific populations, 3) evaluate population baseline risk for primary outcomes, 4) assess representation of these populations in primary studies, 5) appraise analyses, 6) note barriers to implementation of effective interventions for these populations, and 7) suggest supportive strategies to facilitate implementation of effective interventions.

CONCLUSION

Our approach assists guideline developers in recognizing equity considerations, particularly in resource-constrained settings. Its application across various guideline topics can verify its feasibility and necessary adjustments.

A scoping review of shared care models for rheumatoid arthritis with patient-initiated follow-up

OBJECTIVE

An emerging strategy to address access challenges to rheumatologists for patients with RA is shared care between primary and specialist care, with patient-initiated rheumatologist follow-up as needed. The objective of this scoping review was to explore studies implementing this model of care.

METHODS

Four electronic databases were searched from 01/01/2000-31/03/2022 using three main concepts (RA, shared care, patient-initiated follow-up). English-language studies of any design were included if they described the implementation and/or outcomes of shared care model for RA with patient-initiated follow-up. Two authors reviewed and selected articles in duplicate and extracted data on study characteristics, care model implementation and outcomes according to a pre-specified protocol.

RESULTS

Following duplicate removal, 1578 articles were screened for inclusion and 58 underwent full-text review. Sixteen articles were included, representing 10 unique studies. Five studies had qualitative outcomes and two were pre-implementation studies. Model implementation varied significantly between studies. Effectiveness data was available in 10 studies and demonstrated equivalent outcomes for the model of care (disease activity, radiographic damage, quality of life). Health system costs were equivalent or lower than usual care. While satisfaction with care was equivalent or improved in shared care models with patient-initiated follow-up, some concerns were expressed in qualitative evaluation around appropriate patient selection for such models, and information for health equity evaluation was not reported.

CONCLUSIONS

While shared care models with patient-initiated follow-up may offer comparable outcomes for RA, further work is required to understand patient preferences, health equity considerations and longer-term outcomes for such models of care.

Health equity considerations in guideline development: a rapid scoping review

BACKGROUND

Systematic guidance for considering health equity in guidelines is lacking. This scoping review aims to synthesize current best practices for integrating health equity into guideline development and the benefits or drawbacks of these practices.

METHODS

We searched Ovid MEDLINE ALL and Embase Classic+Embase on the Ovid platform, CINAHL on EBSCO, and Web of Science (Core Collection) from 2010 to 2022. We searched grey literature from 2015 to 2022, using the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health Grey Matters checklist and searches of potentially relevant websites. Articles were screened independently by 1 reviewer. Proposed best practices, advantages and disadvantages, and tools were extracted independently by 1 reviewer and qualitatively synthesized based on the relevant steps of a comprehensive checklist covering the stages of guideline development.

RESULTS

We included 26 articles that proposed best practices for incorporating health equity within the guideline development process. These practices were organized under different stages of the development process, including guideline planning, evidence review, guideline development and dissemination. Included studies provided best practices from guideline producers, articles discussing health equity in current guidelines, articles addressing strategies to increase equity in the guideline implementation process, and literature reviews of promising health equity practices.

INTERPRETATION

Our scoping review identified best practices to incorporate health equity considerations at each phase of guideline development. Identified practices may be used to inform equity-promoting strategies with the guideline development process; however, guideline producers should carefully consider the advantages and disadvantages of best practices when integrating health equity.

Personalized medicine in rheumatoid arthritis: Combining biomarkers and patient preferences to guide therapeutic decisions

The last few decades have seen major therapeutic advancements in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) therapeutics. New disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) have continued to emerge, creating more choices for people. However, no therapeutic works for all patients. Each has its own inherent benefits, risks, costs, dosing, and monitoring considerations. In parallel, there has been a focus on personalized medicine initiatives that tailor therapeutic decisions to patients based on their unique characteristics or biomarkers. Personalized effect estimates require an understanding of a patient's baseline probability of response to treatment and data on the comparative effectiveness of the available treatments. However, even if accurate risk prediction models are available, trade-offs often still need to be made between treatments. In this paper, we review the history of RA therapeutics and progress that has been made toward personalized risk predictive models for DMARDs, outlining where knowledge gaps still exist. We further review why patient preferences play a key role in a holistic view of personalized medicine and how this links with shared decision-making. We argue that a "preference misdiagnosis" may be equally important as a medical misdiagnosis but is often overlooked.

Using the WHO-INTEGRATE evidence-to-decision framework to develop recommendations for induction of labour

BACKGROUND

In 2019, WHO prioritized updating recommendations relating to three labour induction topics: labour induction at or beyond term, mechanical methods for labour induction, and outpatient labour induction. As part of this process, we aimed to review the evidence addressing factors beyond clinical effectiveness (values, human rights and sociocultural acceptability, health equity, and economic and feasibility considerations) to inform WHO Guideline Development Group decision-making using the WHO-INTEGRATE evidence-to-decision framework, and to reflect on how methods for identifying, synthesizing and integrating this evidence could be improved.

METHODS

We adapted the framework to consider the key criteria and sub-criteria relevant to our intervention. We searched for qualitative and other evidence across a variety of sources and mapped the eligible evidence to country income setting and perspective. Eligibility assessment and quality appraisal of qualitative evidence syntheses was undertaken using a two-step process informed by the ENTREQ statement. We adopted an iterative approach to interpret the evidence and provided both summary and detailed findings to the decision-makers. We also undertook a review to reflect on opportunities to improve the process of applying the framework and identifying the evidence.

RESULTS

Using the WHO-INTEGRATE framework allowed us to explore health rights and equity in a systematic and transparent way. We identified a lack of qualitative and other evidence from low- and middle-income settings and in populations that are most impacted by structural inequities or traditionally excluded from research. Our process review highlighted opportunities for future improvement, including adopting more systematic evidence mapping methods and working with social science researchers to strengthen theoretical understanding, methods and interpretation of the evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Using the WHO-INTEGRATE evidence-to-decision framework to inform decision-making in a global guideline for induction of labour, we identified both challenges and opportunities relating to the lack of evidence in populations and settings of need and interest; the theoretical approach informing the development and application of WHO-INTEGRATE; and interpretation of the evidence. We hope these insights will be useful for primary researchers as well as the evidence synthesis and health decision-making communities, and ultimately contribute to a reduction in health inequities.

Canadian Rheumatology Association Living Guidelines for the Pharmacological Management of Rheumatoid Arthritis With Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs

OBJECTIVE

To provide the initial installment of a living guideline that will provide up-to-date guidance on the pharmacological management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in Canada.

METHODS

The Canadian Rheumatology Association (CRA) formed a multidisciplinary panel composed of rheumatologists, researchers, methodologists, and patients. In this first installment of our living guideline, the panel developed a recommendation for the tapering of biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (b/ts DMARD) therapy in patients in sustained remission using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach, including a health equity framework developed for the Canadian RA population. The recommendation was adapted from a living guideline of the Australia & New Zealand Musculoskeletal Clinical Trials Network.

RESULTS

In people with RA who are in sustained low disease activity or remission for at least 6 months, we suggest offering stepwise reduction in the dose of b/tsDMARD without discontinuation, in the context of a shared decision, provided patients are able to rapidly access rheumatology care and reestablish their medications if needed. In patients where rapid access to care or reestablishing access to medications is challenging, we conditionally recommend against tapering. A patient decision aid was developed to complement the recommendation.

CONCLUSION

This living guideline will provide contemporary RA management recommendations for Canadian practice. New recommendations will be added over time and updated, with the latest recommendation, evidence summaries, and Evidence to Decision summaries available through the CRA website (www.rheum.ca).