Motivations for investigating health inequities in observational epidemiology: a content analysis of 320 studies

OBJECTIVES

To enhance equity in clinical and epidemiological research, it is crucial to understand researcher motivations for conducting equity-relevant studies. Therefore, we evaluated author motivations in a randomly selected sample of equity-relevant observational studies published during the COVID-19 pandemic.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We searched MEDLINE for studies from 2020 to 2022, resulting in 16,828 references. We randomly selected 320 studies purposefully sampled across income setting (high vs low-middle-income), COVID-19 topic (vs non-COVID-19), and focus on populations experiencing inequities. Of those, 206 explicitly mentioned motivations which we analyzed thematically. We used discourse analysis to investigate the reasons behind emerging motivations.

RESULTS

We identified the following motivations: (1) examining health disparities, (2) tackling social determinants to improve access, and (3) addressing knowledge gaps in health equity. Discourse analysis showed motivations stem from commitments to social justice and recognizing the importance of highlighting it in research. Other discourses included aspiring to improve health-care efficiency, wanting to understand cause-effect relationships, and seeking to contribute to an equitable evidence base.

CONCLUSION

Understanding researchers' motivations for assessing health equity can aid in developing guidance that tailors to their needs. We will consider these motivations in developing and sharing equity guidance to better meet researchers' needs.

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.

Improving social justice in observational studies: protocol for the development of a global and Indigenous STROBE-equity reporting guideline

BACKGROUND

Addressing persistent and pervasive health inequities is a global moral imperative, which has been highlighted and magnified by the societal and health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Observational studies can aid our understanding of the impact of health and structural oppression based on the intersection of gender, race, ethnicity, age and other factors, as they frequently collect this data. However, the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline, does not provide guidance related to reporting of health equity. The goal of this project is to develop a STROBE-Equity reporting guideline extension.

METHODS

We assembled a diverse team across multiple domains, including gender, age, ethnicity, Indigenous background, disciplines, geographies, lived experience of health inequity and decision-making organizations. Using an inclusive, integrated knowledge translation approach, we will implement a five-phase plan which will include: (1) assessing the reporting of health equity in published observational studies, (2) seeking wide international feedback on items to improve reporting of health equity, (3) establishing consensus amongst knowledge users and researchers, (4) evaluating in partnership with Indigenous contributors the relevance to Indigenous peoples who have globally experienced the oppressive legacy of colonization, and (5) widely disseminating and seeking endorsement from relevant knowledge users. We will seek input from external collaborators using social media, mailing lists and other communication channels.

DISCUSSION

Achieving global imperatives such as the Sustainable Development Goals (e.g., SDG 10 Reduced inequalities, SDG 3 Good health and wellbeing) requires advancing health equity in research. The implementation of the STROBE-Equity guidelines will enable a better awareness and understanding of health inequities through better reporting. We will broadly disseminate the reporting guideline with tools to enable adoption and use by journal editors, authors, and funding agencies, using diverse strategies tailored to specific audiences.

Dynamic geographical accessibility assessments to improve health equity: protocol for a test case in Cali, Colombia

This protocol proposes an approach to assessing the place of residence as a spatial determinant of health in cities where traffic congestion might impact health services accessibility. The study provides dynamic travel times presenting data in ways that help shape decisions and spur action by diverse stakeholders and sectors.  Equity assessments in geographical accessibility to health services typically rely on static metrics, such as distance or average travel times. This new approach uses dynamic spatial accessibility measures providing travel times from the place of residence to the health service with the shortest journey time. It will show the interplay between traffic congestion, accessibility, and health equity and should be used to inform urban and health services monitoring and planning. Available digitised data enable efficient and accurate accessibility measurements for urban areas using publicly available sources and provide disaggregated sociodemographic information and an equity perspective. Test cases are done for urgent and frequent care (i.e., repeated ambulatory care). Situational analyses will be done with cross-sectional urban assessments; estimated potential improvements will be made for one or two new services, and findings will inform recommendations and future studies. This study will use visualisations and descriptive statistics to allow non-specialized stakeholders to understand the effects of accessibility on populations and health equity. This includes "time-to-destination" metrics or the proportion of the people that can reach a service by car within a given travel time threshold from the place of residence. The study is part of the AMORE Collaborative Project, in which a diverse group of stakeholders seeks to address equity for accessibility to essential health services, including health service users and providers, authorities, and community members, including academia.

Dynamic accessibility by car to tertiary care emergency services in Cali, Colombia, in 2020: cross-sectional equity analyses using travel time big data from a Google API

OBJECTIVES

To test a new approach to characterise accessibility to tertiary care emergency health services in urban Cali and assess the links between accessibility and sociodemographic factors relevant to health equity.

DESIGN

The impact of traffic congestion on accessibility to tertiary care emergency departments was studied with an equity perspective, using a web-based digital platform that integrated publicly available digital data, including sociodemographic characteristics of the population and places of residence with travel times.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Cali, Colombia (population 2.258 million in 2020) using geographic and sociodemographic data. The study used predicted travel times downloaded for a week in July 2020 and a week in November 2020.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES

The share of the population within a 15 min journey by car from the place of residence to the tertiary care emergency department with the shortest journey (ie, 15 min accessibility rate (15mAR)) at peak-traffic congestion hours. Sociodemographic characteristics were disaggregated for equity analyses. A time-series bivariate analysis explored accessibility rates versus housing stratification.

RESULTS

Traffic congestion sharply reduces accessibility to tertiary emergency care (eg, 15mAR was 36.8% during peak-traffic hours vs 84.4% during free-flow hours for the week of 6-12 July 2020). Traffic congestion sharply reduces accessibility to tertiary emergency care. The greatest impact fell on specific ethnic groups, people with less educational attainment and those living in low-income households or on the periphery of Cali (15mAR: 8.1% peak traffic vs 51% free-flow traffic). These populations face longer average travel times to health services than the average population.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that health services and land use planning should prioritise travel times over travel distance and integrate them into urban planning. Existing technology and data can reveal inequities by integrating sociodemographic data with accurate travel times to health services estimates, providing the basis for valuable indicators.

Reporting of health equity considerations in equity-relevant observational studies: Protocol for a systematic assessment

Background: The mitigation of unfair and avoidable differences in health is an increasing global priority. Observational studies including cohort, cross-sectional and case-control studies tend to report social determinants of health which could inform evidence syntheses on health equity and social justice. However, the extent of reporting and analysis of equity in equity-relevant observational studies is unknown. Methods: We define studies which report outcomes for populations at risk of experiencing inequities as “equity-relevant”. Using a random sampling technique we will identify 320 equity-relevant observational studies published between 1 January 2020 to 27 April 2022 by searching the MEDLINE database. We will stratify sampling by 1) studies in high-income countries (HIC) and low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) according to the World Bank classification, 2) studies focused on COVID and those which are not, 3) studies focused on populations at risk of experiencing inequities and those on general populations that stratify their analyses. We will use the PROGRESS framework which stands for place of residence, race or ethnicity, occupation, gender or sex, religion, education, socioeconomic status, social capital, to identify dimensions where inequities may exist. Using a previously developed data extraction form we will pilot-test on eligible studies and revise as applicable. Conclusions: The proposed methodological assessment of reporting will allow us to systematically understand the current reporting and analysis practices for health equity in observational studies. The findings of this study will help inform the development of the equity extension for the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology) reporting guidelines.

Social Innovation For Health Research: Development of the SIFHR Checklist

BACKGROUND

Social innovations in health are inclusive solutions to address the healthcare delivery gap that meet the needs of end users through a multi-stakeholder, community-engaged process. While social innovations for health have shown promise in closing the healthcare delivery gap, more research is needed to evaluate, scale up, and sustain social innovation. Research checklists can standardize and improve reporting of research findings, promote transparency, and increase replicability of study results and findings.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

The research checklist was developed through a 3-step community-engaged process, including a global open call for ideas, a scoping review, and a 3-round modified Delphi process. The call for entries solicited checklists and related items and was open between November 27, 2019 and February 1, 2020. In addition to the open call submissions and scoping review findings, a 17-item Social Innovation For Health Research (SIFHR) Checklist was developed based on the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) Checklist. The checklist was then refined during 3 rounds of Delphi surveys conducted between May and June 2020. The resulting checklist will facilitate more complete and transparent reporting, increase end-user engagement, and help assess social innovation projects. A limitation of the open call was requiring internet access, which likely discouraged participation of some subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

The SIFHR Checklist will strengthen the reporting of social innovation for health research studies. More research is needed on social innovation for health.

Exploring social innovation in health in Central America and the Caribbean

Universal health coverage is a public health priority in the Americas. Social innovation in health offers novel solutions to unmet needs, by enabling health care delivery to be more inclusive, affordable, and effective. In 2017, an international collaborative consortium launched an open call for solutions that sought to identify social innovations in health in Central America and the Caribbean. The focus was set on how these solutions can strengthen health care delivery, with emphasis on reducing the impact of neglected transmissible diseases. A crowdsourcing strategy was implemented to identify social innovations in health. These were evaluated by an external panel of experts and practitioners and civil society representing the health and social innovation sectors, based on the appropriateness, innovativeness, and affordability of the solution. The three top-scoring solutions were analyzed through case studies including site visits by a team of investigators. Two key findings emerged from the response to the call: 1) innovative solutions were based on the knowledge and experience of individuals and communities facing adverse situations; 2) this knowledge was shared through health promotion and education, leading to empowerment of the communities. The principal challenges addressed by the solutions were the limited access to quality health care services and failed traditional strategies for vector control. The solutions identified demonstrated how social innovation can strengthen health systems by delivering novel solutions to health needs and articulating communities to enable them to work hand-in-hand with the health system toward universal health.

Reporting of health equity considerations in cluster and individually randomized trials

Background

The randomized controlled trial (RCT) is considered the gold standard study design to inform decisions about the effectiveness of interventions. However, a common limitation is inadequate reporting of the applicability of the intervention and trial results for people who are “socially disadvantaged” and this can affect policy-makers’ decisions. We previously developed a framework for identifying health-equity-relevant trials, along with a reporting guideline for transparent reporting. In this study, we provide a descriptive assessment of health-equity considerations in 200 randomly sampled equity-relevant trials.

Methods

We developed a search strategy to identify health-equity-relevant trials published between 2013 and 2015. We randomly sorted the 4316 records identified by the search and screened studies until 100 individually randomized (RCTs) and 100 cluster randomized controlled trials (CRTs) were identified. We developed and pilot-tested a data extraction form based on our initial work, to inform the development of our reporting guideline for equity-relevant randomized trials.

Results

In total, 39 trials (20%) were conducted in a low- and middle-income country and 157 trials (79%) in a high-income country focused on socially disadvantaged populations (78% CRTs, 79% RCTs). Seventy-four trials (37%) reported a subgroup analysis across a population characteristic associated with disadvantage (25% CRT, 49% RCTs), with 19% of included studies reporting subgroup analyses across sex, 9% across race/ethnicity/culture, and 4% across socioeconomic status. No subgroup analyses were reported for place of residence, occupation, religion, education, or social capital. One hundred and forty-one trials (71%) discussed the applicability of their results to one or more socially disadvantaged populations (68% of CRT, 73% of RCT).

Discussion

In this set of trials, selected for their relevance to health equity, data that were disaggregated for socially disadvantaged populations were rarely reported. We found that even when the data are available, opportunities to analyze health-equity considerations are frequently missed. The recently published equity extension of the Consolidated Reporting Standards for Randomized Trials (CONSORT-Equity) may help improve delineation of hypotheses related to socially disadvantaged populations, and transparency and completeness of reporting of health-equity considerations in RCTs. This study can serve as a baseline assessment of the reporting of equity considerations.

Promoting high quality research into priority health needs in Latin America and Caribbean

The region still needs to build its research capacity to inform effective public health policy and practices, say Fabio Zicker and colleagues

Research for health in the Americas

Evolution of health research to reshape national health agendas

Advancing health research through research governance

Good governance practices are crucial for advancing research for health in LAC countries, argue Luis Alejandro Salicrup and colleagues

Pediatric cancer registries in Latin America: the case of Argentina's pediatric cancer registry

Despite its low incidence, pediatric cancer makes up a significant portion of childhood illnesses. Yet information on pediatric cancer in Latin America is scarce. Since the early 2000s the World Health Organization (WHO) has been highlighting the role of cancer registries in cancer surveillance and control. This article describes the main aspects of pediatric cancer registration in Latin America, highlighting the successes of Argentina's national pediatric cancer registry, Registro Oncopediátrico Hospitalario Argentino (ROHA), which allows for better health care and contributes to improved outcomes for children with cancer, to provide a rationale for the expansion and enhancement of pediatric cancer registration in other Latin American countries.

When is a randomised controlled trial health equity relevant? Development and validation of a conceptual framework

BACKGROUND

Randomised controlled trials can provide evidence relevant to assessing the equity impact of an intervention, but such information is often poorly reported. We describe a conceptual framework to identify health equity-relevant randomised trials with the aim of improving the design and reporting of such trials.

METHODS

An interdisciplinary and international research team engaged in an iterative consensus building process to develop and refine the conceptual framework via face-to-face meetings, teleconferences and email correspondence, including findings from a validation exercise whereby two independent reviewers used the emerging framework to classify a sample of randomised trials.

RESULTS

A randomised trial can usefully be classified as 'health equity relevant' if it assesses the effects of an intervention on the health or its determinants of either individuals or a population who experience ill health due to disadvantage defined across one or more social determinants of health. Health equity-relevant randomised trials can either exclusively focus on a single population or collect data potentially useful for assessing differential effects of the intervention across multiple populations experiencing different levels or types of social disadvantage. Trials that are not classified as 'health equity relevant' may nevertheless provide information that is indirectly relevant to assessing equity impact, including information about individual level variation unrelated to social disadvantage and potentially useful in secondary modelling studies.

CONCLUSION

The conceptual framework may be used to design and report randomised trials. The framework could also be used for other study designs to contribute to the evidence base for improved health equity.

Progress in trial registration in Latin America and the Caribbean, 2007-2013

This descriptive study identifies trends in clinical trial registration in the World Health Organization International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP) for Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), from 2007–2013, and provides adjusted estimates for registration rates by population and publications (2007–2011). Trends and data are presented by subregion and language in interactive graphs, including annual registration rates by population (2007–2011) and publications (LILACS and MEDLINE) listed in SCIENTI Network (Science and Technology Indicators). Of the 11 945 clinical trials involving LAC countries, 8 282 were in South America, with Brazil leading at 4 070 (49%); 2 421 in North and Central America, with Mexico leading at 1 886 (78%); and 1 242 in the Caribbean, with Puerto Rico leading at 857 (69%). After adjusting by population and publication rates Chile, Panama, Argentina, and Peru led registration rates per 1 million inhabitants. Variations in the number of trials per year are quite substantial.

Clinical trial registration increased in a steady yet inconsistent way. The implementation of the Policy on Research for Health has been followed by an increase in countries that require registration and have established clinical trial registries. However, there is room for improvement in adherence throughout LAC. Trial registration is offered gratis by Brazilian, Cuban, Peruvian, and United States registries, among others.

Protocol for the development of a CONSORT-equity guideline to improve reporting of health equity in randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Health equity concerns the absence of avoidable and unfair differences in health. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) can provide evidence about the impact of an intervention on health equity for specific disadvantaged populations or in general populations; this is important for equity-focused decision-making. Previous work has identified a lack of adequate reporting guidelines for assessing health equity in RCTs. The objective of this study is to develop guidelines to improve the reporting of health equity considerations in RCTs, as an extension of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT).

METHODS/DESIGN

A six-phase study using integrated knowledge translation governed by a study executive and advisory board will assemble empirical evidence to inform the CONSORT-equity extension. To create the guideline, the following steps are proposed: (1) develop a conceptual framework for identifying "equity-relevant trials," (2) assess empirical evidence regarding reporting of equity-relevant trials, (3) consult with global methods and content experts on how to improve reporting of health equity in RCTs, (4) collect broad feedback and prioritize items needed to improve reporting of health equity in RCTs, (5) establish consensus on the CONSORT-equity extension: the guideline for equity-relevant trials, and (6) broadly disseminate and implement the CONSORT-equity extension.

DISCUSSION

This work will be relevant to a broad range of RCTs addressing questions of effectiveness for strategies to improve practice and policy in the areas of social determinants of health, clinical care, health systems, public health, and international development, where health and/or access to health care is a primary outcome. The outcomes include a reporting guideline (CONSORT-equity extension) for equity-relevant RCTs and a knowledge translation strategy to broadly encourage its uptake and use by journal editors, authors, and funding agencies.

[Priority research agendas: a strategic resource for health in Latin America]

OBJECTIVE

Understand and analyze procedures used to create national integrated research agendas from 2007 to 2011 in Argentina, Guatemala, Mexico, Panama, and Paraguay.

METHODS

Descriptive, cross-sectional study using an online survey of agenda preparation processes; specifically, development, integration, implementation, and use and dissemination of the agenda.

RESULTS

The 45 respondents reported following specific methodologies for agenda construction and had a good opinion of organizational aspects with regard to prior information provided and balance among disciplines and stakeholders. Some 60% considered the coordinators impartial, although 25% mentioned biases favoring some subject; 42% received technical support from consultants, reading matter, and methodological guidelines; 40% engaged in subject-matter priority-setting; and 55% confirmed dissemination and communication of the agenda. However, only 22% reported inclusion of agenda topics in national calls for research proposals.

CONCLUSIONS

In the countries studied, development of the health research agenda was characterized by prior planning and appropriate organization to achieve - consensus-based outcomes. Nevertheless, the agendas were not used in national calls for research proposals, reflecting lack of coordination in national health research systems and lack of connection between funders and researchers. It is recommended that stakeholders strengthen integration and advocacy efforts to modify processes and structures of agenda-based calls for research proposals.

Enemas during labour

BACKGROUND

Although the use of enemas during labour usually reflects the preference of the attending healthcare provider, enemas may cause discomfort for women.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of enemas applied during the first stage of labour on maternal and neonatal outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 May 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 5), PubMed (1966 to 31 May 2013), LILACS (31 May 2013), the Search Portal of the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (31 May 2013), Health Technology Assessment Program, UK (31 May 2013), Medical Research Council, UK (31 May 2013), The Wellcome Trust, UK (31 May 2013) and reference lists of retrieved articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which an enema was administered during the first stage of labour and which included assessment of possible neonatal or puerperal morbidity or mortality.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion.

MAIN RESULTS

Four RCTs (1917 women) met the inclusion criteria. One study was judged as having a low risk of bias. In the meta-analysis we conducted of two trials, we found no significant difference in infection rates for puerperal women (two RCTs; 594 women; risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence (CI) 0.42 to 1.04). No significant differences were found in neonatal umbilical infection rates (two RCTs; 592 women; RR 3.16, 95% CI 0.50 to 19.82; I(2) 0%. In addition, meta-analysis of two studies found that there were no significant differences in the degree of perineal tear between groups. Finally, meta-analysis of two trials found no significant differences in the mean duration of labour.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence provided by the four included RCTs shows that enemas do not have a significant beneficial effect on infection rates such as perineal wound infection or other neonatal infections and women's satisfaction. These findings speak against the routine use of enemas during labour, therefore, such practice should be discouraged.

Enemas during labour

BACKGROUND

Although the use of enemas during labour usually reflects the preference of the attending healthcare provider, enemas may cause discomfort for women.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of enemas applied during the first stage of labour on maternal and neonatal outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (17 May 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 5), PubMed (1966 to 17 May 2012), LILACS (17 May 2012), the Search Portal of the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (17 May 2012), Health Technology Assessment Program, UK (17 May 2012), Medical Research Council, UK (17 May 2012), The Wellcome Trust, UK (17 May 2012) and reference lists of retrieved articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which an enema was administered during the first stage of labour and which included assessment of possible neonatal or puerperal morbidity or mortality.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion. 

MAIN RESULTS

Four RCTs (1917 women) met the inclusion criteria. One study was judged as having a low risk of bias. In the meta-analysis we conducted of two trials, we found no significant difference in infection rates for puerperal women (two RCTs; 594 women; risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence (CI) 0.42 to 1.04). No significant differences were found in neonatal umbilical infection rates (two RCTs; 592 women; RR 3.16, 95% CI 0.50 to 19.82; I² 0%. In addition, meta-analysis of two studies found that there were no significant differences in the degree of perineal tear between groups. Finally, meta-analysis of two trials found no significant differences in the mean duration of labour.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence provided by the four included RCTs shows that enemas do not have a significant beneficial effect on infection rates such as perineal wound infection or other neonatal infections and women's satisfaction. These findings speak against the routine use of enemas during labour, therefore, such practice should be discouraged.

Chemoprophylaxis in contacts of patients with cholera: systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

There is a pressing need for effective measures to prevent the spread of cholera. Our systematic review assesses the effects of chemoprophylaxis in preventing cholera among exposed contacts.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We considered published and unpublished reports of studies up to July 2011. For this we searched: PubMed (1966 to July, 2011), Embase (1980 to July 2011), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (6; 2011), LILACS (1982 to July, 2011), the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (July 2011) and references of identified publications. We included controlled clinical trials (randomized and non-randomized) in which chemoprophylaxis was used to prevent cholera among patient contacts. The main outcome measures were hospitalization and laboratory diagnosis of cholera in contacts for cholera patients. We assessed the risk of bias. We identified 2638 references and these included 2 randomized trials and 5 controlled trials that added up to a total of 4,154 participants. The risk of bias scored high for most trials. The combined results from two trials found that chemoprophylaxis reduced hospitalization of contacts during the follow-up period by 8-12 days (2826 participants; RR 0.54 95% CI 0.40-0.74;I² 0%). A meta-analysis of five trials found a significant reduction in disease among contacts with at least one positive sample who received chemoprophylaxis during the overall follow-up (range 4-15 days) (1,414 participants; RR 0.35 95% CI 0.18-0.66;I² 74%). A significant reduction in the number of positive samples was also found with chemoprophylaxis (3 CCT; 6,918 samples; RR 0.39 95% CI 0.29-0.51;I² 0%).

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that chemoprophylaxis has a protective effect among household contacts of people with cholera but the results are based on studies with a high risk of bias. Hence, there is a need for adequate reliable research that allows balancing benefits and harms by evaluating the effects of chemoprophylaxis.

Treatments for iron-deficiency anaemia in pregnancy

BACKGROUND

Iron deficiency, the most common cause of anaemia in pregnancy worldwide, can be mild, moderate or severe. Severe anaemia can have very serious consequences for mothers and babies, but there is controversy about whether treating mild or moderate anaemia provides more benefit than harm.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of different treatments for anaemia in pregnancy attributed to iron deficiency (defined as haemoglobin less than 11 g/dL or other equivalent parameters) on maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (7 June 2011), CENTRAL (2011, Issue 5), PubMed (1966 to June 2011), the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (2 May 2011), Health Technology Assessment Program (HTA) (2 May 2011) and LATINREC (Colombia) (2 May 2011).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing treatments for anaemia in pregnancy attributed to iron deficiency.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We identified 23 trials, involving 3.198 women. We assessed their risk of bias. Three further studies identified are awaiting classification.

MAIN RESULTS

Many of the trials were from low-income countries; they were generally small and frequently methodologically poor. They covered a very wide range of differing drugs, doses and routes of administration, making it difficult to pool data. Oral iron in pregnancy showed a reduction in the incidence of anaemia (risk ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval 0.26 to 0.55, one trial, 125 women) and better haematological indices than placebo (two trials). It was not possible to assess the effects of treatment by severity of anaemia. A trend was found between dose and reported adverse effects. Most trials reported no clinically relevant outcomes nor adverse effects. Although the intramuscular and intravenous routes produced better haematological indices in women than the oral route, no clinical outcomes were assessed and there were insufficient data on adverse effects, for example, on venous thrombosis and severe allergic reactions. Daily low-dose iron supplements may be effective at treating anaemia in pregnancy with less gastrointestinal side effects compared with higher doses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite the high incidence and burden of disease associated with this condition, there is a paucity of good quality trials assessing clinical maternal and neonatal effects of iron administration in women with anaemia. Daily oral iron treatment improves haematological indices but causes frequent gastrointestinal adverse effects. Parenteral (intramuscular and intravenous) iron enhances haematological response, compared with oral iron, but there are concerns about possible important adverse effects (for intravenous treatment venous thrombosis and allergic reactions and for intramuscular treatment important pain, discolouration and allergic reactions). Large, good quality trials, assessing clinical outcomes (including adverse effects) as well as the effects of treatment by severity of anaemia are required.

Prospective registration and results disclosure of clinical trials in the Americas: a roadmap toward transparency

The objective of this article is to propose a roadmap toward transparency of clinical trials in the Americas by their prospective registration and results disclosure. This will broaden access to more complete and accurate data and facilitate evidence-informed decision-making and participation in research. Consequently, it should have a positive impact on people's health and should promote trust in health research. Existing initiatives were identified, registration of trials was analyzed following the World Health Organization (WHO) standards on trial registration, and a roadmap is proposed to address the gaps in advancing transparency. The analysis shows that, in spite of numerous regional and country initiatives, clinical trials taking place in nonEnglish-speaking parts of the Americas are underregistered. A roadmap is proposed to enhance research governance and good research practice by improving the transparency of clinical trials. The proposed roadmap includes strategies for implementing WHO international standards for trial registration, for developing international standards of public disclosure of trial results, and for a potential role of the Pan American Health Organization.

[National health research systems in Latin America: a 14-country review]

This article discusses the main features of the national health research systems (NHRS) of Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Honduras, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela, based on documents prepared by their country experts who participated in the First Latin American Conference on Research and Innovation for Health held in April 2008, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The review also includes sources cited in the reports, published scientific papers, and expert opinion, as well as regional secondary sources. Six countries reported having formal entities for health research governance and management: Brazil and Costa Rica's entities are led by their ministries of health; while Argentina, Cuba, Ecuador, and Venezuela have entities shared by their ministries of health and ministries of science and technology. Brazil and Ecuador each reported having a comprehensive national policy devoted specifically to health science, technology, and innovation. Argentina, Brazil, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, and Venezuela reported having established health research priorities. In conclusion, encouraging progress has been made, despite the structural and functional heterogeneity of the study countries' NHRS and their disparate levels of development. Instituting good NHRS governance/management is of utmost importance to how efficiently ministries of health, other government players, and society-at-large can tackle health research.

Enemas during labour

BACKGROUND

The use of enemas during labour usually reflects the preference of the attending healthcare provider. However, enemas may cause discomfort for women and increase the costs of delivery.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of enemas applied during the first stage of labour on infection rates in mothers and newborns, duration of labour, perineal wound dehiscence in the mother, perineal pain and faecal soiling.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (March 2007), PubMed (1966 to December 2006), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (The Cochrane Library 2006, Issue 4), clinical trials registers (December 2006) and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which an enema was administered during the first stage of labour and which included assessment of possible neonatal or puerperal morbidity or mortality.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed studies for inclusion independently.

MAIN RESULTS

Three RCTs (1765 women) met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis revealed no significant differences for infection rates in puerperal women (2 RCTs; 594 women; relative risk (RR) 0.66, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.04) or newborn children (1 RCT; 370 newborns; RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.67) after one month of follow up. No significant differences were found in the incidence of lower or upper respiratory tract infections. One trial described labour to be significantly shorter with enema versus no enema (1 RCT, 1027 women; 409.4 minutes versus 459.8 minutes; weighted mean difference (WMD) -50,40 CI 95% -75.68 to -25.12; P < 0.001), but another, adjusted for parity, did not confirm this (median 515 minutes with enemas versus 585 minutes without enemas, P = 0.24). Two trials found no significant differences in neonatal umbilical infection (2 RCTs; 592 newborns; RR 3.16 95% CI 0.50 to 19.82). The one trial that researched women's views found no significant differences in satisfaction between groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence provided by the three included RCTs shows that enemas do not have a significant effect on infection rates such as perineal wound infection or other neonatal infections and women's satisfaction. This evidence does not support the routine use of enemas during labour; therefore, such practice should be discouraged.

Treatments for iron-deficiency anaemia in pregnancy

BACKGROUND

Iron deficiency, the most common cause of anaemia in pregnancy worldwide, can be mild, moderate or severe. Severe anaemia can have very serious consequences for mothers and babies, but there is controversy about whether treating mild or moderate anaemia provides more benefit than harm.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of different treatments for iron-deficiency anaemia in pregnancy (defined as haemoglobin less than 11 g/dl) on maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (January 2007), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2005, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1966 to December 2005), EMBASE (1976 to December 2005), LILACS (1982 to 40 edition), BIOSIS Previews (1980 to June 2002) and ongoing clinical trial registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing treatments for iron-deficiency anaemia in pregnancy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We identified 17 trials, involving 2578 women. We assessed trial quality.

MAIN RESULTS

The trials were small and generally methodologically poor. They covered a very wide range of differing drugs, doses and routes of administration, making it difficult to pool data. Oral iron in pregnancy showed a reduction in the incidence of anaemia (one trial, 125 women; relative risk 0.38; 95% confidence interval 0.26 to 0.55). It was not possible to assess the effects of treatment by severity of anaemia. A trend was found between dose and reported adverse effects. We found that most trials had no assessments on relevant clinical outcomes and a paucity of data on adverse effects, including some that are known to be associated with iron administration. Although the intramuscular and intravenous routes produced better haematological indices in women than the oral route, no clinical outcomes were assessed and there were insufficient data on adverse effects, for example, on venous thrombosis and severe allergic reactions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite the high incidence and burden of disease associated with this condition, there is a paucity of good quality trials assessing clinical maternal and neonatal effects of iron administration in women with anaemia. Daily oral iron treatment improves haematological indices but causes frequent gastrointestinal adverse effects. Parenteral (intramuscular and intravenous) iron enhances haematological response, compared with oral iron, but there are concerns about possible important adverse effects. Large, good quality trials, assessing clinical outcomes (including adverse effects) are required.