Which public health interventions are effective in reducing morbidity, mortality and health inequalities from infectious diseases amongst children in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs): protocol for an umbrella review

Research Review: Grandparental care and child mental health - a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The number of children residing in grandfamilies is growing worldwide, leading to more research attention on grandparental care over the past decades. Grandparental care can influence child well-being in various forms and the effects vary across contexts. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we synthesize the evidence on the relation between grandparental care and children's mental health status.

METHODS

We identified 5,745 records from seven databases, among which 38 articles were included for review. Random effects meta-analyses were used to synthesize evidence from eligible studies. We also examined the variability across study and participant characteristics, including study design, recruitment method, child age, child gender, study region, family type, comparison group, and outcome rater.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis consisted of 344,860 children from the included studies, whose average age was 10.29, and of which 51.39% were female. Compared with their counterparts, children being cared for by their grandparents had worse mental health status, including more internalizing problems (d = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.31, -0.09], p = .001), externalizing problems (d = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.21, -0.01], p = .03), overall mental problems (d = -0.37, 95% CI [-0.70, -0.04], p = .03), and poorer socioemotional well-being (d = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.49, -0.03], p = .03). The effects varied by study design and child gender.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings highlight that grandparental care is negatively associated with child mental health outcomes with trivial-to-small effect sizes. More supportive programs and interventions should be delivered to grandfamilies, especially in disadvantaged communities.

Research on emergency management of global public health emergencies driven by digital technology: A bibliometric analysis

Background

The frequent occurrence of major public health emergencies globally poses a threat to people's life, health, and safety, and the convergence development of digital technology is very effective and necessary to cope with the outbreak and transmission control of public epidemics such as COVID-19, which is essential to improve the emergency management capability of global public health emergencies.

Methods

The published literatures in the Web of Science Core Collection database from 2003 to 2022 were utilized to analyze the contribution and collaboration of the authors, institutions, and countries, keyword co-occurrence analysis, and research frontier identification using the CiteSpace, VOSviewer, and COOC software.

Results

The results are shown as follows: (1) Relevant research can be divided into growth and development period and rapid development period, and the total publications show exponential growth, among which the USA, China, and the United Kingdom are the most occupied countries, but the global authorship cooperation is not close; (2) clustering analysis of high-frequency keyword, all kinds of digital technologies are utilized, ranging from artificial intelligence (AI)-driven machine learning (ML) or deep learning (DL), and focused application big data analytics and blockchain technology enabled the internet of things (IoT) to identify, and diagnose major unexpected public diseases are hot spots for future research; (3) Research frontier identification indicates that data analysis in social media is a frontier issue that must continue to be focused on to advance digital and smart governance of public health events.

Conclusion

This bibliometric study provides unique insights into the role of digital technologies in the emergency management of public health. It provides research guidance for smart emergency management of global public health emergencies.

Off-label use of drugs in pediatrics: a scoping review

To explore the current state of research on off-label drug use in children and identify the existing research gaps in this topic. Six literature databases were searched to identify studies focusing exclusively on off-label drug use in children (aged < 18 years) published in Chinese or English between 2016 and 2021. We also searched clinicaltrials.gov for pediatric clinical trials conducted in the same period and compared the numbers of studies on off-label use and clinical trials for the most commonly reported drugs and drug types. Our search revealed 568 studies on off-label drug use. Almost half of the studies (n = 240) were cross-sectional. A total of 212 specific drugs or drug types were addressed in 361 studies, the most frequent being antipsychotic agents (n = 12), dexmedetomidine (n = 10), and rituximab (n = 8). Antipsychotic agents were also the most common type of drug examined in clinical trials in children. We identified a total of 435 different types of off-label use, the top three being unapproved indication (n = 157), population (n = 96), or age (n = 36). Only about one-third of the studies reported collecting informed consent (n = 195) or having ethics committee approval (n = 166).    Conclusions: Off-label use of antipsychotics in children is widely reported in the literature. We suggest pediatric researchers to consider the number of studies on off-label use and existing clinical trials on different drugs when selecting target drugs for new studies and systematic reviews. What is Known: • There exist a large number of studies on off-label drug use in children. What is New: • This is the first scoping review of studies on off-label drug use in children. • Off-label use of antipsychotic agents is widely reported.

How effects on health equity are assessed in systematic reviews of interventions

BACKGROUND

Enhancing health equity is endorsed in the Sustainable Development Goals. The failure of systematic reviews to consider potential differences in effects across equity factors is cited by decision-makers as a limitation to their ability to inform policy and program decisions.  OBJECTIVES: To explore what methods systematic reviewers use to consider health equity in systematic reviews of effectiveness.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to 26 February 2021: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Methodology Register, CINAHL, Education Resources Information Center, Education Abstracts, Criminal Justice Abstracts, Hein Index to Foreign Legal Periodicals, PAIS International, Social Services Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, Digital Dissertations and the Health Technology Assessment Database. We searched SCOPUS to identify articles that cited any of the included studies on 10 June 10 2021. We contacted authors and searched the reference lists of included studies to identify additional potentially relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included empirical studies of cohorts of systematic reviews that assessed methods for measuring effects on health inequalities. We define health inequalities as unfair and avoidable differences across socially stratifying factors that limit opportunities for health. We operationalised this by assessing studies which evaluated differences in health across any component of the PROGRESS-Plus acronym, which stands for Place of residence, Race/ethnicity/culture/language, Occupation, Gender or sex, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status, Social capital. "Plus" stands for other factors associated with discrimination, exclusion, marginalisation or vulnerability such as personal characteristics (e.g. age, disability), relationships that limit opportunities for health (e.g. children in a household with parents who smoke) or environmental situations which provide limited control of opportunities for health (e.g. school food environment).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data using a pre-tested form. Risk of bias was appraised for included studies according to the potential for bias in selection and detection of systematic reviews.  MAIN RESULTS: In total, 48,814 studies were identified and the titles and abstracts were screened in duplicate. In this updated review, we identified an additional 124 methodological studies published in the 10 years since the first version of this review, which included 34 studies. Thus, 158 methodological studies met our criteria for inclusion. The methods used by these studies focused on evidence relevant to populations experiencing health inequity (108 out of 158 studies), assess subgroup analysis across PROGRESS-Plus (26 out of 158 studies), assess analysis of a gradient in effect across PROGRESS-Plus (2 out of 158 studies) or use a combination of subgroup analysis and focused approaches (20 out of 158 studies). The most common PROGRESS-Plus factors assessed were age (43 studies), socioeconomic status in 35 studies, low- and middle-income countries in 24 studies, gender or sex in 22 studies, race or ethnicity in 17 studies, and four studies assessed multiple factors across which health inequity may exist. Only 16 studies provided a definition of health inequity. Five methodological approaches to consider health equity in systematic reviews of effectiveness were identified: 1) descriptive assessment of reporting and analysis in systematic reviews (140 of 158 studies used a type of descriptive method); 2) descriptive assessment of reporting and analysis in original trials (50 studies); 3) analytic approaches which assessed differential effects across one or more PROGRESS-Plus factors (16 studies); 4) applicability assessment (25 studies) and 5) stakeholder engagement (28 studies), which is a new finding in this update and examines the appraisal of whether relevant stakeholders with lived experience of health inequity were included in the design of systematic reviews or design and delivery of interventions. Reporting for both approaches (analytic and applicability) lacked transparency and was insufficiently detailed to enable the assessment of credibility.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is a need for improvement in conceptual clarity about the definition of health equity, describing sufficient detail about analytic approaches (including subgroup analyses) and transparent reporting of judgments required for applicability assessments in order to consider health equity in systematic reviews of effectiveness.

Women's empowerment and fertility preferences of married women: analysis of demographic and health survey’2016 in Timor-Leste

A recently independent state, Timor-Leste, is progressing towards socioeconomic development, prioritizing women empowerment while its increased fertility rate (4.1) could hinder the growth due to an uncontrolled population. Currently, limited evidence shows that indicators of women's empowerment are associated with fertility preferences and rates. The objective of this study was to assess the association between women empowerment and fertility preferences of married women aged 15 to 49 years in Timor-Leste using nationally representative survey data. The study was conducted using the data of the latest Timor-Leste Demographic and Health Survey 2016. The study included 4040 rural residents and 1810 urban residents of Timor-Leste. Multinomial logistic regression has been performed to assess the strength of association between the exposures indicating women's empowerment and outcome (fertility preference). After adjusting the selected covariates, the findings showed that exposures that indicate women empowerment in DHS, namely, the employment status of women, house and land ownership, ownership of the mobile phone, and independent bank account status, contraceptive use, and the attitude of women towards negotiating sexual relations are significantly associated with fertility preferences. The study shows higher the level of education, the less likely were the women to want more children, and unemployed women were with a higher number of children. Our study also found that the attitude of violence of spouses significantly influenced women's reproductive choice. However, employment had no significant correlation with decision-making opportunities and contraceptive selection due to a lack of substantial data. Also, no meaningful data was available regarding decision-making and fertility preferences. Our findings suggest that women's empowerment governs decision-making in fertility preferences, causing a decline in the fertility rate.

Which public health interventions are effective in reducing morbidity, mortality and health inequalities from infectious diseases amongst children in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs): An umbrella review

Despite significant progress in the last few decades, infectious diseases remain a major threat to child health in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)—particularly amongst more disadvantaged groups. It is imperative to understand the best available evidence concerning which public health interventions reduce morbidity, mortality and health inequalities in children aged under five years. To address this gap, we carried out an umbrella review (a systematic reviews of reviews) to identify evidence on the effects of public health interventions (promotion, protection, prevention) on morbidity, mortality and/or health inequalities due to infectious diseases amongst children in LMICs. Ten databases were searched for records published between 2014–2021 alongside a manual search of gray literature. Articles were quality-assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews tool (AMSTAR 2). A narrative synthesis was conducted. We identified 60 systematic reviews synthesizing 453 individual primary studies. A majority of the reviews reported on preventive interventions (n = 48), with a minority on promotion (n = 17) and almost no reviews covering health protection interventions (n = 2). Effective interventions for improving child health across the whole population, as well as the most disadvantaged included communication, education and social mobilization for specific preventive services or tools, such as immunization or bed nets. For all other interventions, the effects were either unclear, unknown or detrimental, either at the overall population level or regarding health inequalities. We found few reviews reporting health inequalities information and the quality of the evidence base was generally low. Our umbrella review identified some prevention interventions that might be useful in reducing under five mortality from infectious diseases in LMICs, particularly amongst the most disadvantaged groups.