Quality, Equity and Utility of Observational Studies during 10 Years of Implementing the Structured Operational Research and Training Initiative in 72 Countries

A comprehensive assessment of quality management methods in the SMESH study

BACKGROUND

This paper aims to instigate discussion and publication of methodologies applied to enhance quality management through comprehensive scientific reports. It provides a detailed description of the design, implementation, and results of the quality control program employed in the SMESH study.

METHODS

Cross-sectional, multicenter, national study designed to assess the prevalence of human papillomavirus in sex workers and in men who have sex with men (MSM). Respondent-driven sampling recruitment was used. An online system was developed for the study and checkpoints were defined for data entry. The system checked the quality of biological samples and performed a retest with part of the sample.

RESULTS

A total of 1.598 participants (442 sex workers and 1.156 MSM) were included. Fifty-four health professionals were trained for face-to-face data collection. The retest showed Kappa values ranging between 0.3030 and 0.7663.

CONCLUSION

The retest data were mostly classified as indicating a strong association. The data generated by the checkpoints showed the successful implementation of the quality control program.

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 scoping review establishes need for consensus guidance on reporting health equity in observational studies

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the support from the available guidance on reporting of health equity in research for our candidate items and to identify additional items for the Strengthening Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology-Equity extension.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted a scoping review by searching Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane Methodology Register, LILACS, and Caribbean Center on Health Sciences Information up to January 2022. We also searched reference lists and gray literature for additional resources. We included guidance and assessments (hereafter termed "resources") related to conduct and/or reporting for any type of health research with or about people experiencing health inequity.

RESULTS

We included 34 resources, which supported one or more candidate items or contributed to new items about health equity reporting in observational research. Each candidate item was supported by a median of six (range: 1-15) resources. In addition, 12 resources suggested 13 new items, such as "report the background of investigators".

CONCLUSION

Existing resources for reporting health equity in observational studies aligned with our interim checklist of candidate items. We also identified additional items that will be considered in the development of a consensus-based and evidence-based guideline for reporting health equity in observational studies.

Strengthening the Operational Research Capacity of National Tuberculosis Control Programs: Necessity or Luxury?

'How to get research into practice: first get practice into research [...].

Quality, Equity and Partnerships in Mixed Methods and Qualitative Research during Seven Years of Implementing the Structured Operational Research and Training Initiative in 18 Countries

Introduction: Qualitative studies are often inadequately reported, making it difficult to judge their appropriateness for decision making in public health. We assessed the publication characteristics and quality of reporting of qualitative and mixed-method studies from the Structured Operational Research and Training Initiative (SORT IT), a global partnership for operational research capacity building. Methods: A cross-sectional analysis of publications to assess the qualitative component using an adapted version of the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) checklist. Results: In 67 publications involving 18 countries, 32 journals and 13 public health themes, 55 were mixed-methods studies and 12 were qualitative studies. First authorship from low-and-middle-income (LMIC) countries was present in 64 (96%), LMIC last authorship in 55 (82%), and female first authorship in 30 (45%). The mean LMIC institutions represented per publication was five (range 1-11). Sixty-three (94%) publications were open access. Reporting quality was graded as 'good' to 'excellent' in 60 (89%) publications, 'fair' in five (8%) and 'poor' in two (3%). Conclusion: Most SORT IT publications adhered to COREQ standards, while supporting gender equity in authorship and the promotion of LMIC research leadership. SORT IT plays an important role in ensuring quality of evidence for decision making to improve public health.

Real-Time Operational Research: Case Studies from the Field of Tuberculosis and Lessons Learnt

Real-time operational research can be defined as research on strategies or interventions to assess if they are feasible, working as planned, scalable and effective. The research involves primary data collection, periodic analysis during the conduct of the study and dissemination of the findings to policy makers for timely action. This paper aims to illustrate the use of real-time operational research and discuss how to make it happen. Four case studies are presented from the field of tuberculosis. These include (i) mis-registration of recurrent tuberculosis in Malawi; (ii) HIV testing and adjunctive cotrimoxazole to reduce mortality in TB patients in Malawi; (iii) screening TB patients for diabetes mellitus in India; and (iv) mitigating the impact of COVID-19 on TB case detection in capital cities in Kenya, Malawi and Zimbabwe. The important ingredients of real-time operational research are sound ethics; relevant research; adherence to international standards of conducting and reporting on research; consideration of comparison groups; timely data collection; dissemination to key stakeholders; capacity building; and funding. Operational research can improve the delivery of established health interventions and ensure the deployment of new interventions as they become available, irrespective of diseases. This is particularly important when public health emergencies, including pandemics, threaten health services.