Latent Semantic Analysis for Text Segmentation

Freddy Y. Y. Choi,P. Wiemer-Hastings,Johanna D. Moore

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Consideration for Health Disparities in Value Assessment Frameworks

Dominique Seo,Divya Patil,Joe Vandigo,T Joseph Mattingly 2nd

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S471855

2024-09-28

Abstract:Background: Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) compares interventions based on relative value and is an integral part of value assessment. Despite recommendations for economists to consider disparities in CEAs that impact health-care resource allocation decisions, the perception held by stakeholders is that value assessment frameworks are inconsistent in practice. Methods: We reviewed value assessment reports produced by a United States (US)-based value assessment organization to identify how patients and caregiver input may contribute to how the organization considers health disparities. We purposefully extracted and categorized information relevant to health disparities from report sections on Patient and Caregiver Perspectives and Contextual Considerations and Other Potential Benefits to represent the data acknowledged by the organization's patient engagement efforts. We conducted a thematic analysis of the text in these sections and mapped to a health disparities framework endorsed by the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD). Results: Nineteen evidence reports were included in our analysis. We identified 30 equity-related themes from external stakeholder perspectives or acknowledged in the report and 17 equity-related themes that reflect the actions taken by the economic model developers to address health disparities as a formal part of the CEA. We found examples of the value assessment organization explicitly considering health disparities in cost-effectiveness estimates. However, explicit considerations were not consistent across reports and were not necessarily aligned with patient and caregiver input during model development or consistent with the organization's own contextual considerations. Conclusion: Our findings highlight the need for a systematic approach for the consideration of health disparities within a value assessment framework and more transparency around how final cost-effectiveness approaches are determined.
Annual cost of relapses and relapse-related hospitalizations in adults with schizophrenia: results from a 12-month, double-blind, comparative study of lurasidone vs quetiapine extended-release

K. Rajagopalan,K. O’Day,K. Meyer,A. Pikalov,A. Loebel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3111/13696998.2013.809353

2013-06-07

Journal of Medical Economics

Abstract:Abstract Purpose: To model the economic impact of annual relapses/relapse-related hospitalizations among adults with schizophrenia treated with lurasidone or quetiapine extended-release (XR). Methods: A probabilistic model estimating per-patient-per-year (PPPY) direct mental healthcare (MH) cost differences due to relapses/relapse-related hospitalizations was developed using relapse and relapse-related hospitalization rates from a 12-month, double-blind, parallel-group, global comparison study of lurasidone vs quetiapine XR (all patients previously treated with lurasidone or quetiapine XR for 6 weeks). Analyses were conducted for both all subjects and clinical responders. Direct costs associated with inpatient and outpatient mental healthcare-related services were obtained from a large, prospective, observational study of schizophrenia treatment in usual-care settings for relapsing and non-relapsing patients, including psychiatric hospitalizations, emergency services, medication management, and outpatient individual therapy. Model robustness was tested using univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Results: Model-estimated PPPY MH cost savings associated with relapse-related hospitalization rates in all subjects were $3276 for lurasidone vs quetiapine XR. Lurasidone resulted in PPPY MH cost savings of $2702 vs quetiapine XR in all subjects, using relapse rates. Sensitivity analyses indicated lurasidone had lower 1-year MH costs than quetiapine XR in 100% and 99.7% of simulations, using relapse-related hospitalization rates and relapse rates, respectively, in all subjects. Similar results were seen in clinical responders. Limitations: The model represents a simplification of treatment patterns and response to treatment. Cost of treatment with lurasidone and quetiapine XR was not included in the model. Estimates of cost savings are likely conservative, as the model did not assess the impact of long-term cardiometabolic consequences. Indirect costs associated with relapses and non-mental health-related costs were also excluded from the model. Conclusion: Adults treated for schizophrenia with lurasidone are predicted to have lower 12-month MH costs compared to those treated with quetiapine XR due to fewer relapses and relapse-related hospitalizations.
Future Directions for Cost-effectiveness Analyses in Health and Medicine

Peter J Neumann,David D Kim,Thomas A Trikalinos,Mark J Sculpher,Joshua A Salomon,Lisa A Prosser,Douglas K Owens,David O Meltzer,Karen M Kuntz,Murray Krahn,David Feeny,Anirban Basu,Louise B Russell,Joanna E Siegel,Theodore G Ganiats,Gillian D Sanders

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X18798833

Abstract:Objectives: In 2016, the Second Panel on Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine updated the seminal work of the original panel from 2 decades earlier. The Second Panel had an opportunity to reflect on the evolution of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and to provide guidance for the next generation of practitioners and consumers. In this article, we present key topics for future research and policy. Methods: During the course of its deliberations, the Second Panel discussed numerous topics for advancing methods and for improving the use of CEA in decision making. We identify and consider 7 areas for which the panel believes that future research would be particularly fruitful. In each of these areas, we highlight outstanding research needs. The list is not intended as an exhaustive inventory but rather a set of key items that surfaced repeatedly in the panel's discussions. In the online Appendix , we also list and expound briefly on 8 other important topics. Results: We highlight 7 key areas: CEA and perspectives (determining, valuing, and summarizing elements for the analysis), modeling (comparative modeling and model transparency), health outcomes (valuing temporary health and path states, as well as health effects on caregivers), costing (a cost catalogue, valuing household production, and productivity effects), evidence synthesis (developing theory on learning across studies and combining data from clinical trials and observational studies), estimating and using cost-effectiveness thresholds (empirically representing 2 broad concepts: opportunity costs and public willingness to pay), and reporting and communicating CEAs (written protocols and a quality scoring system). Conclusions: Cost-effectiveness analysis remains a flourishing and evolving field with many opportunities for research. More work is needed on many fronts to understand how best to incorporate CEA into policy and practice.
Incorporating healthcare access and equity in economic evaluations: a scoping review of guidelines

Bryony Dawkins,Bethany Shinkins,Tim Ensor,David Jayne,David Meads

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266462324000618

2024-11-24

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Abstract:Background International development agendas increasingly push for access to healthcare for all through universal healthcare coverage. Health economic evaluations and health technology assessment (HTA) could provide evidence to support this but do not routinely incorporate consideration of equitable access. Methods We undertook an international scoping review of health economic evaluation and HTA guidelines to examine how well issues of healthcare access and equity are represented, evidence recommendations, and gaps in current guidance to support evidence generation in this area. Guidelines were sourced from guideline repositories and websites of international agencies and organizations providing best practice methods guidance. Articles providing methods guidance for the conduct of HTA, or health economic evaluation, were included, except where they were not available in English and a suitable translation could not be obtained. Results The search yielded forty-seven national, four international, and nine independent guidelines, along with eighty-six articles providing specific methods guidance. The inclusion of equity and access considerations in current guidance is extremely limited. Where they do feature, detail on specific methods for providing evidence on these issues is sparse. Discussion Economic evaluation could be a valuable tool to provide evidence for the best healthcare strategies that not only maximize health but also ensure equitable access to care for all. Such evidence would be invaluable in supporting progress towards universal healthcare coverage. Clear guidance is required to ensure evaluations provide evidence on the best strategies to support equitable access to healthcare, but such guidance rarely exists in current best practice and guidance documents.

public, environmental & occupational health,health care sciences & services,medical informatics
Methods for considering equality and equity implications in horizon scanning for medicines and healthcare innovations: a scoping review.

Chizoba Oparah,Tafadzwa Patience Kunonga,Claire Eastaugh,Gill Norman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.10.28.24316274

2024-10-29

Abstract:Background There is an increasing focus on inequity in healthcare and health outcomes. Early awareness of potential sources of inequity in access to and outcomes from innovative health technologies can support system preparedness and allow implementation of mitigations. They may also be used to improve research inclusion. Objective To explore methods used to integrate equality and equity into horizon scanning for healthcare innovations, focusing on acceptability, polypharmacy, and multiple long-term conditions (MLTC). Design A scoping review followed Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidelines to identify relevant methodologies for integrating equity into horizon scanning. Data sources Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, ProQuest, and WHO Global Index Medicus up to May 24, 2024. Eligibility criteria Studies were eligible if they presented methodologies for integrating equity and equality considerations into horizon scanning in health and care. Primary outcomes related to equity or equality, and secondary outcomes addressed acceptability, polypharmacy, and MLTC. Data extraction and synthesis Data were extracted on study characteristics, equity frameworks, and the integration of equity-related factors, including socioeconomic status, gender, and geographic location. A narrative synthesis was used to present the findings. Results Out of 951 records screened, three studies were included. The studies used varied horizon scanning methods, including scenario-building and foresight methodologies, and spanned multiple healthcare contexts such as precision oncology and complex paediatric care. Each study incorporated equity/equality by addressing the impact of emerging innovations on clinically vulnerable populations. Acceptability was found to be crucial for equitable implementation, particularly in precision oncology. However, managing complex health needs, especially in disadvantaged groups, is complicated by significant challenges such as polypharmacy and the presence of multiple long-term conditions. Conclusions Limited evidence highlighted a lack of consistent approaches to integrating equity into horizon scanning. While methods such as stakeholder engagement and scenario analysis showed promise, further research is needed to refine frameworks that better detect early indicators of inequity in healthcare innovation.

Public and Global Health
Can health information and decision aids decrease inequity in health care? A systematic review on the equality of their effectiveness

Christin Ellermann,Jana Hinneburg,Christoph Wilhelm,Felix Rebitschek

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.09.24.24314314

2024-09-25

Abstract:Objectives Systematic review of studies evaluating evidence-based health information (EBHI) and decision aids (DAs) in terms of the extent to which inequity-producing factors have been considered and how these factors affect access to health-related information and informed decision-making. Study design Systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Methods Systematic searches were performed in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ERIC and PSYNDEX from inception to May 2023 to identify evaluation studies of EBHI and DAs that take into account factors associated with unequal opportunities as defined by PROGRESS Plus. Information on the effect of these factors was extracted and analysed in terms of outcomes relevant to the decision-making process. Results Few studies have examined the impact of EBHI/DAs on outcomes relevant to decision-making with respect to inequity-producing factors. In our final synthesis,12 studies were included. A positive association between the effectiveness of the intervention and the disadvantage status could be found twice and a negative association in three studies. Overall, most of the studies found no difference in knowledge gain, decision conflict and shared decision-making (SDM) between those advantaged and disadvantaged in terms of ethnicity, gender, education, age, income, health literacy, numeracy or socioeconomic status (SES). However, few trials examined this effect and the effect was considered solely in subgroup analyses that were probably underpowered, so asymmetries between these groups may not have been detected in the existing designs. Conclusion EBHI and DAs have been shown to be effective in promoting decision-making and thus in improving health care. To improve health care equitably, greater attention needs to be paid to methodological requirements in evaluations to fully capture potential differences in access to health-related information between individuals or in populations within the target groups of EBHI/DAs. PROSPERO registration: CRD42018103456 Key words: Equity, decision aids, decision-making, informed choice, evidence-based

Public and Global Health
Equity in national healthcare economic evaluation guidelines: Essential or extraneous?

Tuba Saygın Avşar,Xiaozhe Yang,Paula Lorgelly

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.117220

2024-08-13

Abstract:Background: The focus on health maximisation in a healthcare economic evaluation (HEE) - that is health gains are of equal value regardless of the recipient- has significant implications as health systems attempt to address persistent and growing health inequities. This study aimed to systematically compare and contrast the equity principles of different health technology assessment (HTA) agencies and how equity is addressed in HEE guidelines. Methods: HTA agencies were identified through the ISPOR, GEAR, iDSI, HTAi, INAHTA, HTAsiaLink, and RedETSA websites in June 2021 and updated in August 2023. Agencies websites were then searched to retrieve HEE guidelines. The guidelines were grouped into two categories: well-established and newly-developed agency guidelines, based on whether or not they published their first guidelines before 2009. Data extracted summarised the methodological details in the reference cases, including specifics on how equity featured and in what role. In those agencies where equity did not feature explicitly in the HEE guidelines, an additional search of the agency website was undertaken to understand if equity featured in those agencies' decision-making frameworks. Results: The study included 46 guidelines from 51 countries. Only 30% of the guidelines were explicit about the equity assumptions. Health equity (using a broad definition) was mentioned in 29 guidelines and 14 included a specific definition while only seven recommended specific methods to incorporate inequalities. Addressing equity concerns was usually suggested as an additional analyses rather than a key part of the assessment. It was unclear how equity was incorporated into decision-making processes. In addition, equity was mentioned in other guidance - such as decision-making frameworks - provided by five agencies that did not mention it in the HEE guidelines, and 7 of 14 topic selection criteria that were identified. Conclusion: Equity is given less attention than efficiency in HEE guidelines. This indicates that HTA agencies while subscribing to an extra-welfarist approach have a narrow evaluative space - focusing on maximising health and not considering the opportunity cost of the equity constraint. The omission of equity and the lack of systematic approaches in guidelines poses a threat to the international endeavours to reduce inequities. It is timely for HTA agencies to reconsider their positions on equity explicitly.
How effects on health equity are assessed in systematic reviews of interventions.

Vivian Welch,Omar Dewidar,Elizabeth Tanjong Ghogomu,Salman Abdisalam,Abdulah Al Ameer,Victoria I Barbeau,Kevin Brand,Kisanet Kebedom,Maria Benkhalti,Elizabeth Kristjansson,Mohamad Tarek Madani,Alba M Antequera Martín,Christine M Mathew,Jessie McGowan,William McLeod,Hanbyoul Agatha Park,Jennifer Petkovic,Alison Riddle,Peter Tugwell,Mark Petticrew,Jessica Trawin,George A Wells

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000028.pub3

IF: 8.4

2022-01-20

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract:Enhancing health equity is endorsed in the Sustainable Development Goals. The failure of systematic reviews to consider potential differences in effects across equity factors is cited by decision‐makers as a limitation to their ability to inform policy and program decisions. To explore what methods systematic reviewers use to consider health equity in systematic reviews of effectiveness. We searched the following databases up to 26 February 2021: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Methodology Register, CINAHL, Education Resources Information Center, Education s, Criminal Justice s, Hein Index to Foreign Legal Periodicals, PAIS International, Social Services s, Sociological s, Digital Dissertations and the Health Technology Assessment Database. We searched SCOPUS to identify articles that cited any of the included studies on 10 June 10 2021. We contacted authors and searched the reference lists of included studies to identify additional potentially relevant studies. We included empirical studies of cohorts of systematic reviews that assessed methods for measuring effects on health inequalities. We define health inequalities as unfair and avoidable differences across socially stratifying factors that limit opportunities for health. We operationalised this by assessing studies which evaluated differences in health across any component of the PROGRESS‐Plus acronym, which stands for Place of residence, Race/ethnicity/culture/language, Occupation, Gender or sex, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status, Social capital. "Plus" stands for other factors associated with discrimination, exclusion, marginalisation or vulnerability such as personal characteristics (e.g. age, disability), relationships that limit opportunities for health (e.g. children in a household with parents who smoke) or environmental situations which provide limited control of opportunities for health (e.g. school food environment). Two review authors independently extracted data using a pre‐tested form. Risk of bias was appraised for included studies according to the potential for bias in selection and detection of systematic reviews. In total, 48,814 studies were identified and the titles and abstracts were screened in duplicate. In this updated review, we identified an additional 124 methodological studies published in the 10 years since the first version of this review, which included 34 studies. Thus, 158 methodological studies met our criteria for inclusion. The methods used by these studies focused on evidence relevant to populations experiencing health inequity (108 out of 158 studies), assess subgroup analysis across PROGRESS‐Plus (26 out of 158 studies), assess analysis of a gradient in effect across PROGRESS‐Plus (2 out of 158 studies) or use a combination of subgroup analysis and focused approaches (20 out of 158 studies). The most common PROGRESS‐Plus factors assessed were age (43 studies), socioeconomic status in 35 studies, low‐ and middle‐income countries in 24 studies, gender or sex in 22 studies, race or ethnicity in 17 studies, and four studies assessed multiple factors across which health inequity may exist. Only 16 studies provided a definition of health inequity. Five methodological approaches to consider health equity in systematic reviews of effectiveness were identified: 1) descriptive assessment of reporting and analysis in systematic reviews (140 of 158 studies used a type of descriptive method); 2) descriptive assessment of reporting and analysis in original trials (50 studies); 3) analytic approaches which assessed differential effects across one or more PROGRESS‐Plus factors (16 studies); 4) applicability assessment (25 studies) and 5) stakeholder engagement (28 studies), which is a new finding in this update and examines the appraisal of whether relevant stakeholders with lived experience of health inequity were included in the design of systematic reviews or design and delivery of interventions. Reporting for both approaches (analytic and applicability) lacked transparency and was insufficiently detailed to enable the assessment of credibility. There is a need for improvement in conceptual clarity about the definition of health equity, describing sufficient detail about analytic approaches (including subgroup analyses) and transparent reporting of judgments required for applicability assessments in order to consider health equity in systematic reviews of effectiveness. Key message We found five methodological approaches to consider health equity in systematic reviews of effectiveness but the most appropriate way to address any of these approaches is unclear. Review question We reviewed the methods that systematic reviewers use to consider health equity in systematic reviews of effectiveness. Background Reducing health inequities, avoidable and unfair differences in health, has achieved international political importance and global en -Abstract Truncated-

medicine, general & internal
The Presence of an Enzootic of Rickettsial Infection in Wild Rats of Calcutta

R. Goyal

1941-02-01

Abstract:
Molecular cloning and characterization of a cDNA for the beta subunit of a G protein from rice.

A. Ishikawa,Y. Iwasaki,T. Asahi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/OXFORDJOURNALS.PCP.A078767

IF: 4.9

1995-03-01

Plant and Cell Physiology

Abstract:We isolated a cDNA for the beta subunit of a heterotrimeric G protein from rice (Oryza sativa L. cv. Nipponbare). The amino acid sequence deduced from the cDNA was 76% an 94% homologus to the sequences of the beta subunits from Arabidopsis and maize (AG beta 1 and ZG beta 1), respectively.
Handling Missing Data in Within-Trial Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: a Review with Future Guidelines

Andrea Gabrio,Alexina Mason,Gianluca Baio

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1607.06447

2016-07-22

Abstract:Cost-Effectiveness Analyses (CEAs) alongside randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are increasingly often designed to collect resource use and preference-based health status data for the purpose of healthcare technology assessment. However, because of the way these measures are collected, they are prone to missing data, which can ultimately affect the decision of whether an intervention is good value for money. We examine how missing cost and effect outcome data are handled in RCT-based CEAs, complementing a previous review (covering 2003-2009, 88 articles) with a new systematic review (2009-2015, 81 articles) focussing on two different perspectives. First, we review the description of the missing data, the statistical methods used to deal with them, and the quality of the judgement underpinning the choice of these methods. Second, we provide guidelines on how the information about missingness and related methods should be presented to improve the reporting and handling of missing data. Our review shows that missing data in within-RCT CEAs are still often inadequately handled and the overall level of information provided to support the chosen methods is rarely satisfactory.

Applications
Evaluating Equity in Health Financing Using Benefit Incidence Analysis: A Framework for Accounting for Quality of Care

Augustine Asante,Nicola Man,Virginia Wiseman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-020-00597-2

Abstract:Equity in health care financing has gained increased attention in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) following the renewed global interest in universal health coverage (UHC), a key component of the sustainable development goals (SDGs). UHC requires that people have access to the health services they need without risking financial hardship. Health financing is central to UHC and many LMICs have initiated reforms to align their health financing systems with the goals of UHC. Evaluation of the equity impact of these reforms has become a growing area of research, especially in countries with large health inequalities where the pressure to move towards UHC is most intense and the need for evidence to inform policy most critical. However, current analytical tools for evaluating equity in health financing conspicuously exclude indicators of quality, an important dimension of UHC. The aim of this paper was to address this critical methodological gap by introducing quality scores into benefit incidence analysis (BIA), one of the key techniques for assessing equity in health financing. BIA measures the extent to which different socioeconomic groups benefit from public spending on health care through their use of health services. The benefit (public subsidy) is captured in monetary terms by multiplying the quantity of a particular health service consumed by the unit cost of that service and subtracting any out-of-pocket costs incurred while using the service. It does not account for variations in the quality of health services in the computation of the public subsidy.
The Promise of Equity: A Review of Health Equity Research in High-Impact Quality Improvement Journals

Michael Scott,Shail Rawal

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1062860617726854

2017-08-19

American Journal of Medical Quality

Abstract:Equity is a core domain of health care quality. This study characterizes equity research in the quality improvement (QI) literature. The data sources were all review articles, methodology articles, original research, and research letters/abstracts published in 5 high-impact QI journals in 2015. Using the Institute of Medicine definition of equity, 2 reviewers assessed the abstracts to identify equity-focused articles. The number of Google Scholar citations and study site were recorded for each abstract. For equity-focused studies, the equity topic was recorded. Of 684 abstracts, 63 (9.2%) investigated equity topics. A weighted average of 7.4% of abstracts examined equity. The most commonly studied equity topics were health care resource scarcity, race/ethnicity, and mental health. Equity-focused articles received equal citations and were more likely to be conducted in low-/middle-income countries when compared with articles unrelated to equity. Few articles published in 5 leading QI journals addressed topics related to equity.

health care sciences & services
Achieving equity within universal health coverage: a narrative review of progress and resources for measuring success

Anna M Rodney,Peter S Hill

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-014-0072-8

2014-10-10

International Journal for Equity in Health

Abstract:IntroductionEquity should be implicit within universal health coverage (UHC) however, emerging evidence is showing that without adequate focus on measurement of equity, vulnerable populations may continue to receive inadequate or inferior health care. This study undertakes a narrative review which aims to: (i) elucidate how equity is contextualised and measured within UHC, and (ii) describe tools, resources and lessons which will assist decision makers to plan and implement UHC programmes which ensure equity for all.MethodsA narrative review of peer-reviewed literature published in English between 2005 and 2013, retrieved from PubMed via the search words, `universal health coverage/care’ and `equity/inequity’ was performed. Websites of key global health organizations were also searched for relevant grey literature. Papers were excluded if they failed to focus on equity (of access, financial risk protection or health outcomes) as well as focusing on one of the following: (i) the impact of UHC programmes, policies or interventions on equity (ii) indicators, measurement, monitoring and/or evaluation of equity within UHC, or (iii) tools or resources to assist with measurement.ResultsEighteen journal articles consisting mostly of secondary analysis of country data and qualitative case studies in the form of commentaries/reviews, and 13 items of grey literature, consisting largely of reports from working groups and expert meetings focusing on defining, understanding and measuring inequity in UHC (including recent drafts of global/country monitoring frameworks) were included.DiscussionThe literature advocates for progressive universalism addressing monetary and non-monetary barriers to access and strengthening existing health systems. This however relies on countries being effectively able to identify and reach disadvantaged populations and estimate unmet need. Countries should assess the new WHO/WB-proposed framework for its ability to adequately track the progress of disadvantaged populations in terms of achieving equitable access, effective coverage and financial risk protection within their own settings.ConclusionsRecently published resources contextualise equity as a measurable component of UHC and propose several useful indicators and frameworks. Country case-studies also provide useful lessons and recommendations for planning and implementing equitable UHC which will assist other countries to consider their own requirements for UHC monitoring and evaluation.

public, environmental & occupational health
A Scoping Review of Health Equity Interventions in Governmental Public Health

Skky Martin,Janette Dill,Denisha Demeritte,Hannah Geressu,Roshani Dahal,Chelsey Kirkland,Shanda Hunt,Romil Parikh

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/PHH.0000000000001947

Abstract:Context: Despite major efforts in research, practice, and policy, racial and ethnic disparities in health and health care persist in the United States. Interventions in collaboration with governmental public health may provide ways to address these persistent racial and ethnic health and health care disparities and improve health outcomes. Objective: To conduct a comprehensive review of health equity interventions performed in collaboration with public health agencies. Design: This scoping review includes intervention studies from Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Academic Search Premier, published between 2017 and 2023. The search strategy used terminology focused on 4 concepts: race/ethnicity, equity, health departments, and epidemiologic studies. Eligibility criteria: The following inclusion criteria were determined a priori: (1) intervention tailored to reduce racial/ethnic health disparities, (2) public health department involvement, (3) health outcome measures, (4) use of epidemiologic study methods, (5) written in English, (6) implemented in the United States, (7) original data (not a commentary), and (8) published between January 2017 and January 2023. Main outcome measures: This review focused primarily on 4 dimensions of racial health equity interventions including intervention components, intervention settings, intervention delivery agents, and intervention outcomes. Results: This review indicated that health equity interventions involving public health agencies focused on the following categories: (1) access to care, (2) health behavior, (3) infectious disease testing, (4) preventing transmission, and (5) cancer screening. Critical strategies included in interventions for reaching racial/ethnic minoritized people included using community settings, mobile clinics, social media/social networks, phone-based interventions, community-based workers, health education, active public health department involvement, and structural/policy change. Conclusions: This scoping review aims to provide an evidence map to inform public health agencies, researchers, and funding agencies on gaps in knowledge and priority areas for future research and to identify existing health equity interventions that could be considered for implementation by public health leaders.
Human Mesenchymal Stem/Stromal Cells Cultured as Spheroids are Self‐activated to Produce Prostaglandin E2 that Directs Stimulated Macrophages into an Anti‐inflammatory Phenotype

Joni H. Ylöstalo,T. Bartosh,Katie Coble,D. Prockop

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/stem.1191

IF: 5.845

2012-10-01

Stem Cells

Abstract:Culturing cells in three dimension (3D) provides an insight into their characteristics in vivo. We previously reported that human mesenchymal stem/stromal cells (hMSCs) cultured as 3D spheroids acquire enhanced anti‐inflammatory properties. Here, we explored the effects of hMSC spheroids on macrophages that are critical cells in the regulation of inflammation. Conditioned medium (CM) from hMSC spheroids inhibited lipopolysaccharide‐stimulated macrophages from secreting proinflammatory cytokines TNFα, CXCL2, IL6, IL12p40, and IL23. CM also increased the secretion of anti‐inflammatory cytokines IL10 and IL1ra by the stimulated macrophages, and augmented expression of CD206, a marker of alternatively activated M2 macrophages. The principal anti‐inflammatory activity in CM had a small molecular weight, and microarray data suggested that it was prostaglandin E2 (PGE2). This was confirmed by the observations that PGE2 levels were markedly elevated in hMSC spheroid‐CM, and that the anti‐inflammatory activity was abolished by an inhibitor of cyclooxygenase‐2 (COX‐2), a silencing RNA for COX‐2, and an antibody to PGE2. The anti‐inflammatory effects of the PGE2 on stimulated macrophages were mediated by the EP4 receptor. Spheroids formed by human adult dermal fibroblasts produced low levels of PGE2 and displayed negligible anti‐inflammatory effects on stimulated macrophages, suggesting the features as unique to hMSCs. Moreover, production of PGE2 by hMSC spheroids was dependent on the activity of caspases and NFκB activation in the hMSCs. The results indicated that hMSCs in 3D‐spheroid cultures are self‐activated, in part by intracellular stress responses, to produce PGE2 that can change stimulated macrophages from a primarily proinflammatory M1 phenotype to a more anti‐inflammatory M2 phenotype. STEM Cells2012;30:2283–2296
Meaningful causal decompositions in health equity research: definition, identification, and estimation through a weighting framework

John W. Jackson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1909.10060

2020-09-16

Abstract:Causal decomposition analyses can help build the evidence base for interventions that address health disparities (inequities). They ask how disparities in outcomes may change under hypothetical intervention. Through study design and assumptions, they can rule out alternate explanations such as confounding, selection-bias, and measurement error, thereby identifying potential targets for intervention. Unfortunately, the literature on causal decomposition analysis and related methods have largely ignored equity concerns that actual interventionists would respect, limiting their relevance and practical value. This paper addresses these concerns by explicitly considering what covariates the outcome disparity and hypothetical intervention adjust for (so-called allowable covariates) and the equity value judgements these choices convey, drawing from the bioethics, biostatistics, epidemiology, and health services research literatures. From this discussion, we generalize decomposition estimands and formulae to incorporate allowable covariate sets, to reflect equity choices, while still allowing for adjustment of non-allowable covariates needed to satisfy causal assumptions. For these general formulae, we provide weighting-based estimators based on adaptations of ratio-of-mediator-probability and inverse-odds-ratio weighting. We discuss when these estimators reduce to already used estimators under certain equity value judgements, and a novel adaptation under other judgements.

Methodology,Econometrics
Frameshift mutants in the histidine operon of Salmonella typhimurium.

R. Martin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2836(67)90300-2

IF: 6.151

1967-06-14

Journal of Molecular Biology

Abstract:
Cost and economic evidence for asset-based approaches to health improvement and their evaluation methods: a systematic review

Alice Wreford,Linda Birt,Jennifer A. Whitty,Sarah Hanson,Susan Conquer,Adam P. Wagner

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-18231-4

IF: 4.5

2024-03-15

BMC Public Health

Abstract:Abstract Background Asset-based approaches (ABAs) tackle health inequalities by empowering people in more disadvantaged communities, or targeted populations, to better utilise pre-existing local community-based resources. Using existing resources supports individuals to better manage their own health and its determinants, potentially at low cost. Targeting individuals disengaged with traditional service delivery methods offers further potential for meaningful cost-savings, since these people often require costly care. Thus, improving prevention, and management, of ill-health in these groups may have considerable cost implications. Aim To systematically review the extent of current cost and economic evidence on ABAs, and methods used to develop it. Methods Search strategy terms encompassed: i) costing; ii) intervention detail; and iii) locality. Databases searched: Medline, CENTRAL and Wed of Science. Researchers screened 9,116 articles. Risk of bias was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) tool. Narrative synthesis summarised findings. Results Twelve papers met inclusion criteria, representing eleven different ABAs. Within studies, methods varied widely, not only in design and comparators, but also in terms of included costs and outcome measures. Studies suggested economic efficiency, but lack of suitable comparators made more definitive conclusions difficult. Conclusion Economic evidence around ABAs is limited. ABAs may be a promising way to engage underserved or minority groups, that may have lower net costs compared to alternative health and wellbeing improvement approaches. ABAs, an example of embedded services, suffer in the context of economic evaluation, which typically consider services as mutually exclusive alternatives. Economics of the surrounding services, mechanisms of information sharing, and collaboration underpin the success of assets and ABAs. The economic evidence, and evaluations in general, would benefit from increased context and detail to help ensure more nuanced and sophisticated understanding of the economics of ABAs. Further evidence is needed to reach conclusions about cost-effectiveness of ABAs.

public, environmental & occupational health
Amoxicillin-induced acute aseptic meningitis

S. Prieto-González,R. Escoda,E. Coloma,J. Grau

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2010.07.122

IF: 2.116

2011-03-01

Journal of Clinical Neuroscience

Abstract:

Latent Semantic Analysis for Text Segmentation

Consideration for Health Disparities in Value Assessment Frameworks

Annual cost of relapses and relapse-related hospitalizations in adults with schizophrenia: results from a 12-month, double-blind, comparative study of lurasidone vs quetiapine extended-release

Future Directions for Cost-effectiveness Analyses in Health and Medicine

Incorporating healthcare access and equity in economic evaluations: a scoping review of guidelines

Methods for considering equality and equity implications in horizon scanning for medicines and healthcare innovations: a scoping review.

Can health information and decision aids decrease inequity in health care? A systematic review on the equality of their effectiveness

Equity in national healthcare economic evaluation guidelines: Essential or extraneous?

How effects on health equity are assessed in systematic reviews of interventions.

The Presence of an Enzootic of Rickettsial Infection in Wild Rats of Calcutta

Molecular cloning and characterization of a cDNA for the beta subunit of a G protein from rice.

Handling Missing Data in Within-Trial Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: a Review with Future Guidelines

Evaluating Equity in Health Financing Using Benefit Incidence Analysis: A Framework for Accounting for Quality of Care

The Promise of Equity: A Review of Health Equity Research in High-Impact Quality Improvement Journals

Achieving equity within universal health coverage: a narrative review of progress and resources for measuring success

A Scoping Review of Health Equity Interventions in Governmental Public Health

Human Mesenchymal Stem/Stromal Cells Cultured as Spheroids are Self‐activated to Produce Prostaglandin E2 that Directs Stimulated Macrophages into an Anti‐inflammatory Phenotype

Meaningful causal decompositions in health equity research: definition, identification, and estimation through a weighting framework

Frameshift mutants in the histidine operon of Salmonella typhimurium.

Cost and economic evidence for asset-based approaches to health improvement and their evaluation methods: a systematic review

Amoxicillin-induced acute aseptic meningitis