Is Health Equity Considered in Systematic Reviews of the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group?
Is Health Equity Considered in Systematic Reviews of the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1002/art.24206
复制
发表时间：
2008-11-15
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Tsikata, Setorme
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Tugwell, Peter;Maxwell, Lara;Tsikata, Setorme
客观的。确定 Cochrane 肌肉骨骼小组 (CMSG) 系统评价和相应的类风湿关节炎干预初步研究是否报告和分析评估干预措施在减少健康方面的社会经济差异和/或改善穷人健康方面的有效性所需的数据。方法。我们选择了自 2003 年第 1 期以来发表的所有关于类风湿性关节炎的 CMSG 综述。确定了 14 篇综述：获取并评估了这些综述中包含的 156 项主要研究中的 147 项。我们提取了以下方面的数据：是否报告或分析了居住地、种族/民族/文化、职业、性别、宗教、教育、社会经济地位以及社会资本和网络（进展）等维度，以及是否有任何干预措施针对弱势或低收入和中等收入国家人口。 结果。在 147 项初级研究基线报告的进展维度中，性别 (89%) 是最常报告的，其次是教育程度 (25%) 和种族/民族 (18%)。不到 50% 的系统评价报告了进展的维度，即使这些维度已在初步研究中报告过。在 147 项初步研究中，有 6 项（5%）专门针对弱势群体；另外 6 个报告了至少 1 个进展维度的有效性。结论。对类风湿性关节炎干预措施的初步研究通常报告了回答有关健康不平等问题所需的一些变量。即使在初步研究中进行了描述，大多数 CMSG 系统评价也未能评估这些变量。 Cochrane 健康公平领域欢迎
Objective. To determine whether Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group (CMSG) systematic reviews and corresponding primary studies of rheumatoid arthritis interventions report and analyze the data needed to assess the effectiveness of interventions in reducing socioeconomic differences in health and/or improving the health of the poor.Methods. We selected all CMSG reviews on rheumatoid arthritis published since issue 1, 2003. Fourteen reviews were identified: 147 of the 156 primary studies included in these reviews were obtained and assessed. We extracted data on whether the dimensions place of residence, race/ethnicity/culture, occupation, gender, religion, education, socioeconomic status, and social capital and networks (PROGRESS) were reported or analyzed, and whether any interventions were aimed at disadvantaged or low- and middle-income country populations.Results. Among the dimensions of PROGRESS reported at baseline in 147 primary studies, gender (89%) was the most commonly reported, followed by education (25%) and race/ethnicity (18%). Less than 50% of the systematic reviews reported dimensions of PROGRESS even when they had been reported in the primary study. Of 147 primary studies, 6 (5%) were aimed specifically at disadvantaged populations; another 6 reported on effectiveness by at least 1 dimension of PROGRESS.Conclusion. Primary studies of interventions for rheumatoid arthritis generally reported few variables necessary to answer questions about health inequalities. Most CMSG systematic reviews failed to assess those variables even when described in the Primary studies. The Cochrane Health Equity Field welcomes the