Setting priorities for knowledge translation of Cochrane reviews for health equity: Evidence for Equity

International Journal for Equity in Health

Research

Jennifer Petkovic¹  Jennifer Vincent¹  Vivian Welch¹  Zulfiqar A. Bhutta²  Rachel Churchill³  Don deSavigny⁴  Tomas Pantoja⁵  Lawrence Mbuagbaw⁶  Peter Tugwell⁷ 

[1] Bruyère Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada;Center of Excellence in Women and Child Health, The Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan;Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK;Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland;Department of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Centro Medico San Joaquin, Santiago, Chile;Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada;Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada;Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada;WHO Collaborating Centre for Knowledge Translation and Health Technology Assessment in Health Equity, Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada;

关键词: Equity;    Systematic reviews;    Priority setting;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s12939-017-0697-5

 received in 2017-05-15, accepted in 2017-11-08,  发布年份 2017

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

BackgroundA focus on equity in health can be seen in many global development goals and reports, research and international declarations. With the development of a relevant framework and methods, the Campbell and Cochrane Equity Methods Group has encouraged the application of an ‘equity lens’ to systematic reviews, and many organizations publish reviews intended to address health equity.The purpose of the Evidence for Equity (E4E) project was to conduct a priority-setting exercise and apply an equity lens by developing a knowledge translation product comprising summaries of systematic reviews from the Cochrane Library. E4E translates evidence from systematic reviews into ‘friendly front end’ summaries for policy makers.MethodsThe following topic areas with high burdens of disease globally, were selected for the pilot: diabetes/obesity, HIV/AIDS, malaria, nutrition, and mental health/depression. For each topic area, a “stakeholder panel” was assembled that included policymakers and researchers. A systematic search of Cochrane reviews was conducted for each area to identify equity-relevant interventions with a meaningful impact. Panel chairs developed a rating sheet which was used by all panels to rank the importance of these interventions by: 1) Ease of Implementation; 2) Health System Requirements; 3)Universality/Generalizability/Share of Burden; and 4) Impact on Inequities/Effect on equity.The ratings of panel members were averaged for each intervention and criterion, and interventions were ordered according to the average overall ratings.ResultsStakeholder panels identified the top 10 interventions from their respective topic areas. The evidence on these interventions is being summarized with an equity focus and the results posted online, at http://methods.cochrane.org/equity/e4e-series.ConclusionsThis method provides an explicit approach to setting priorities by systematic review groups and funders for providing decision makers with evidence for the most important equity-relevant interventions.

【 授权许可】

CC BY   
© The Author(s). 2017