Browsing by Author "Petticrew, Mark"

Now showing 1 - 6 of 6
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A research and development agenda for systematic reviews that ask complex questions about complex interventions
    (2013) Noyes, Jane; Gough, David; Lewin, Simon; Mayhew, Alain; Michie, Susan; Pantoja Calderón, Tomás; Petticrew, Mark; Pottie, Kevin; Rehfuess, Eva; Shemilt, Ian
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Extending the PRISMA. statement to equity-focused systematic reviews (PRISMA-E. 2012) : explanation and elaboration
    (2016) Welch, Vivian; Petticrew, Mark; Petkovic, Jennifer; Moher, David; Waters, Elizabeth; White, Howard; Tugwell, Peter; Pantoja Calderón, Tomás
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Health equity: evidence synthesis and knowledge translation methods
    (2013) Pantoja Calderón, Tomás; Welch, Vivian A.; Petticrew, Mark; O’Neill, Jennifer; Waters, Elizabeth; Armstrong, Rebecca; Bhutta, Zulfiqar A.; Francis, Damian; Koehlmoos, Tracey P.; Kristjansson, Elizabeth
    Abstract Background At the Rio Summit in 2011 on Social Determinants of Health, the global community recognized a pressing need to take action on reducing health inequities. This requires an improved evidence base on the effects of national and international policies on health inequities. Although systematic reviews are recognized as an important source for evidence-informed policy, they have been criticized for failing to assess effects on health equity. Methods This article summarizes guidance on both conducting systematic reviews with a focus on health equity and on methods to translate their findings to different audiences. This guidance was developed based on a series of methodology meetings, previous guidance, a recently developed reporting guideline for equity-focused systematic reviews (PRISMA-Equity 2012) and a systematic review of methods to assess health equity in systematic reviews. Results We make ten recommendations for conducting equity-focused systematic reviews; and five considerations for knowledge translation. Illustrative examples of equity-focused reviews are provided where these methods have been used. Conclusions Implementation of the recommendations in this article is one step toward monitoring the impact of national and international policies and programs on health equity, as recommended by the 2011 World Conference on Social Determinants of Health.Abstract Background At the Rio Summit in 2011 on Social Determinants of Health, the global community recognized a pressing need to take action on reducing health inequities. This requires an improved evidence base on the effects of national and international policies on health inequities. Although systematic reviews are recognized as an important source for evidence-informed policy, they have been criticized for failing to assess effects on health equity. Methods This article summarizes guidance on both conducting systematic reviews with a focus on health equity and on methods to translate their findings to different audiences. This guidance was developed based on a series of methodology meetings, previous guidance, a recently developed reporting guideline for equity-focused systematic reviews (PRISMA-Equity 2012) and a systematic review of methods to assess health equity in systematic reviews. Results We make ten recommendations for conducting equity-focused systematic reviews; and five considerations for knowledge translation. Illustrative examples of equity-focused reviews are provided where these methods have been used. Conclusions Implementation of the recommendations in this article is one step toward monitoring the impact of national and international policies and programs on health equity, as recommended by the 2011 World Conference on Social Determinants of Health.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    How health equity is reported and analyzed in randomized trials
    (2017) Petkovic, Jennifer; Welch, Vivian; Jull, Janet; Petticrew, Mark; Kristjansson, Elizabeth; Rader, Tamara; Yoganathan, Manosila; McGowan, Jessie; Lyddiatt, Anne; Pantoja Calderón, Tomás
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Improving social justice in observational studies: protocol for the development of a global and Indigenous STROBE-equity reporting guideline
    (2023) Funnell, Sarah; Jull, Janet; Mbuagbaw, Lawrence; Welch, Vivian; Dewidar, Omar; Wang, Xiaoqin; Lesperance, Miranda; Ghogomu, Elizabeth; Rizvi, Anita; Akl, Elie A.; Avey, Marc T.; Antequera, Alba; Bhutta, Zulfiqar A.; Chamberlain, Catherine; Craig, Peter; Cuervo, Luis G.; Dicko, Alassane; Ellingwood, Holly; Feng, Cindy; Francis, Damian; Greer-Smith, Regina; Hardy, Billie-Jo; Harwood, Matire; Hatcher-Roberts, Janet; Horsley, Tanya; Juando-Prats, Clara; Kasonde, Mwenya; Kennedy, Michelle; Kredo, Tamara; Krentel, Alison; Kristjansson, Elizabeth; Langer, Laurenz; Little, Julian; Loder, Elizabeth; Magwood, Olivia; Mahande, Michael J.; Melendez-Torres, G. J.; Moore, Ainsley; Niba, Loveline L.; Nicholls, Stuart G.; Nkangu, Miriam N.; Lawson, Daeria O.; Obuku, Ekwaro; Okwen, Patrick; Pantoja Calderón, Tomás; Petkovic, Jennifer; Petticrew, Mark; Pottie, Kevin; Rader, Tamara; Ramke, Jacqueline; Riddle, Alison; Shamseer, Larissa; Sharp, Melissa; Shea, Bev; Tanuseputro, Peter; Tugwell, Peter; Tufte, Janice; Von Elm, Erik; Waddington, Hugh S.; Wang, Harry; Weeks, Laura; Wells, George; White, Howard; Wiysonge, Charles S.; Wolfenden, Luke; Young, Taryn
    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.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    The effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and policy processes of regulatory, voluntary and partnership policies to improve food environments: an evidence synthesis
    (2024) Blanchard, Laurence; Ray, Stephanie; Law, Cherry; Vega Salas, María Jesús; Bidonde, Julia; Bridge, Gemma; Egan, Matt; Petticrew, Mark; Rutter,Harry; Knai, Cécile
    Background: Dietary factors are among the largest and costliest drivers of chronic diseases in England. As a response, the government implements a range of population interventions to promote healthy diets by targeting food environments.Objectives: This study aimed to conduct a systematic review of the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and policy process of real-world evaluations of national and state policies on improving food environments, with a focus on whether they were regulatory, voluntary or partnership approaches.Data sources: Fourteen relevant English-language databases were searched in November 2020 for studies published between 2010 and 2020.Methods: Six separate evidence reviews were conducted to assess the evidence of effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and policy processes of policies to improve food environments.Results: A total of 483 primary research evaluations and 14 evidence syntheses were included. The study reveals considerable geographic, methodological and other imbalances across the literature, with, for example, 81% of publications focusing only on 12 countries. The systematic reviews also reveal the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of reviewed regulatory approaches designed to improve health, consumer behaviour and food environment outcomes while public–private partnerships and voluntary approaches to improve diets via reformulation, advertising and promotion restrictions or other changes to the environment were limited in their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. The study also revealed key enabling and impeding factors across regulatory, voluntary and public–private partnership approaches.Conclusion: From the available evidence reviewed, this study finds that regulatory approaches appear most effective at improving the food environment, and voluntary agreements and partnerships have limited effectiveness. These findings should be carefully considered in future public health policy development, as should the findings of geographic imbalance in the evidence and inadequate representation of equity dimensions across the policy evaluations. We find that food policies are at times driven by factors other than the evidence and shaped by compromise and pragmatism. Food policy should be first and foremost designed and driven by the evidence of greatest effectiveness to improve food environments for healthier diets