Advertisement

Toward a theory-led metaframework for considering socioeconomic health inequalities within systematic reviews

      Abstract

      Objectives

      To develop a theory-led framework to inform reviewers’ understanding of what, how, and why health care interventions may lead to differential effects across socioeconomic groups.

      Study Design and Setting

      A metaframework approach combined two theoretical perspectives (socioeconomic health inequalities and complex interventions) into a single framework to inform socioeconomic health inequality considerations in systematic reviews.

      Results

      Four theories relating to complexity within systematic reviews and 16 health inequalities intervention theories informed the development of a metaframework. Factors relating to the type of intervention, implementation, context, participant response, and mechanisms associated with differential effects across socioeconomic groups were identified. The metaframework can inform; reviewer discussions around how socioeconomic status (SES) can moderate intervention effectiveness during question formulation, approaches to data extraction and help identify a priori analysis considerations.

      Conclusion

      The metaframework offers a transparent, practical, theory-led approach to inform a program theory for what, how, and why interventions work for different SES groups in systematic reviews. It can enhance existing guidance on conducting systematic reviews that consider health inequalities, increase awareness of how SES can moderate intervention effectiveness, and encourage a greater engagement with theory throughout the review process.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • White M.
        • Adams J.
        • Heywood P.
        How and why do interventions that increase health overall widen inequalities within populations?.
        in: Babones S. Social inequality and public health. Policy Press, Bristol2009: 65-83
        • Lorenc T.
        • Petticrew M.
        • Welch V.
        • Tugwell P.
        What types of interventions generate inequalities? Evidence from systematic reviews.
        J Epidemiol Community Health. 2013; 67: 190-193
        • Tugwell P.
        • de Savigny D.
        • Hawker G.
        • Robinson V.
        Applying clinical epidemiological methods to health equity: the equity effectiveness loop.
        BMJ. 2006; 332: 358-361
        • O'Neill J.
        • Tabish H.
        • Welch V.
        • Petticrew M.
        • Pottie K.
        • Clarke M.
        • et al.
        Applying an equity lens to interventions: using PROGRESS ensures consideration of socially stratifying factors to illuminate inequities in health.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2014; 67: 56-64
        • Whitehead M.
        A typology of actions to tackle social inequalities in health.
        J Epidemiol Community Health. 2007; 61: 473-478
        • Bonnefoy J.
        • Morgan A.
        • Kelly M.
        • Butt J.
        • Bergman V.
        Constructing the evidence base on the social determinants of health: a guide.
        WHO Measurement and Evidence Knowledge Network, Geneva2007
        • Tugwell P.
        • Petticrew M.
        • Kristjansson E.
        • Welch V.
        • Ueffing E.
        • Waters E.
        • et al.
        Assessing equity in systematic reviews: realising the recommendations of the Commission on Social Determinants of Health.
        BMJ. 2010; 341: c4739
        • Welch V.
        • Petticrew M.
        • Tugwell P.
        • Moher D.
        • O'Neill J.
        • Waters E.
        • et al.
        PRISMA-Equity 2012 extension: reporting guidelines for systematic reviews with a focus on health equity.
        PLoS Med. 2012; 9: e1001333
        • Welch V.
        • Petticrew M.
        • Petkovic J.
        • Moher D.
        • Waters E.
        • White H.
        • et al.
        Extending the PRISMA statement to equity-focused systematic reviews (PRISMA-E 2012): explanation and elaboration.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2016; 70: 68-89
        • NIHR CLAHRC North West Coast
        Health inequalities assessment toolkit (HIAT).
        2017 (Available at:)
        http://www.hiat.org.uk/
        Date accessed: June 28, 2018
        • Maden M.
        • Cunliffe A.
        • McMahon N.
        • Booth A.
        • Carey G.M.
        • Paisley S.
        • et al.
        Use of programme theory to understand the differential effects of interventions across socio-economic groups in systematic reviews-a systematic methodology review.
        Syst Rev. 2017; 6: 266
        • Welch V.
        • Brand K.
        • Kristjansson E.
        • Smylie J.
        • Wells G.
        • Tugwell P.
        Systematic reviews need to consider applicability to disadvantaged populations: inter-rater agreement for a health equity plausibility algorithm.
        BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012; 12: 187
        • Runnels V.
        • Tudiver S.
        • Doull M.
        • Boscoe M.
        The challenges of including sex/gender analysis in systematic reviews: a qualitative survey.
        Syst Rev. 2014; 3: 33
        • Maden M.
        • Dickson R.
        Health inequalities and evidence synthesis as part of the CLAHRC NWC. Position statement. Liverpool: evidence synthesis theme, CLARHC NWC.
        University of Liverpool, Liverpool2015
        • Maden M.
        Consideration of health inequalities in systematic reviews: a mapping review of guidance.
        Syst Rev. 2016; 5: 202
        • Rohwer A.
        • Booth A.
        • Pfadenhauer L.
        • Brereton L.
        • Gerhardus A.
        • Mozygemba K.
        • et al.
        Guidance on the use of logic models in health technology assessments of complex interventions.
        2016 (Available at:)
        http://www.integrate-hta. eu/downloads/
        Date accessed: June 28, 2018
        • Carroll C.
        • Booth A.
        • Leaviss J.
        • Rick J.
        “Best fit” framework synthesis: refining the method.
        BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013; 13: 37
        • Booth A.
        • Carroll C.
        How to build up the actionable knowledge base: the role of “best fit” framework synthesis for studies of improvement in healthcare.
        BMJ Qual Saf. 2015; 24: 700-708
        • Anderson L.M.
        • Petticrew M.
        • Chandler J.
        • Grimshaw J.
        • Tugwell P.
        • O'Neill J.
        • et al.
        Introducing a series of methodological articles on considering complexity in systematic reviews of interventions.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2013; 66: 1205-1208
        • Lewin S.
        • Hendry M.
        • Chandler J.
        • Oxman A.D.
        • Michie S.
        • Shepperd S.
        • et al.
        Assessing the complexity of interventions within systematic reviews: development, content and use of a new tool (iCAT_SR).
        BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017; 17: 76
        • Pfadenhauer L.
        • Rohwer A.
        • Burns J.
        • Booth A.
        • Lysdahl K.
        • Hofmann B.
        • et al.
        Guidance for the assessment of context and implementation in HTA and systematic reviews of complex interventions.: the context and implementation of complex interventions (CICI) framework.
        Implement Sci. 2017; 12: 21
        • Pigott T.
        • Shepperd S.
        Identifying, documenting, and examining heterogeneity in systematic reviews of complex interventions.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2013; 66: 1244-1250
        • Hart J.
        The inverse care law.
        Lancet. 1971; 1: 405-412
        • Tanahashi T.
        Health service coverage and its evaluation.
        Bull World Health Organ. 1978; 56: 295-303
        • Victora C.
        • Vaughan J.
        • Barros F.
        • Silva A.
        • Tomasi E.
        Explaining trends in inequities: evidence from Brazilian child health studies.
        Lancet. 2000; 356: 1093-1098
        • Victora C.
        • Wagstaff A.
        • Armstrong Schellenberg J.
        • Gwatkin D.
        • Claeson M.
        • Habicht J.-P.
        Applying an equity lens to child health and mortality: more of the same is not enough.
        Lancet. 2003; 362: 233-241
        • Graham H.
        • Kelly M.
        Health inequalities: concepts, frameworks and policy.
        NHS Health Development Agency, London2004
        • Starfield S.
        What can we learn from equity research and interventions?.
        Aust J Prim Health. 2004; 10: 7-10
        • Starfield B.
        Pathways of influence on equity in health.
        Soc Sci Med. 2007; 64: 1355-1362
        • Welch V.
        • Tugwell P.
        • Morris E.B.
        The equity-effectiveness loop as a tool for evaluating population health interventions.
        Rev Salud Publica (Bogota). 2008; 10: 83-96
        • Frieden T.
        A framework for public health action: the health impact pyramid.
        Am J Public Health. 2010; 100: 590-595
        • Braveman P.
        • Kumanyika S.
        • Fielding J.
        • LaVeist T.
        • Borrell L.
        • Manderscheid R.
        • et al.
        Health disparities and health equity: the issue is justice.
        Am J Public Health. 2011; 101: S149-S155
        • Levesque J.
        • Harris M.
        • Russell G.
        Patient-centred access to health care: conceptualising access at the interface of health systems and populations.
        Int J Equity Health. 2013; 12: 18
        • McGill R.
        • Anwar E.
        • Orton L.
        • Bromley H.
        • Lloyd-Williams F.
        • O'Flaherty M.
        • et al.
        Are interventions to promote healthy eating equally effective for all? Systematic review of socioeconomic inequalities in impact.
        BMC Public Health. 2015; 15: 457
        • Adams J.
        • Mytton O.
        • White M.
        • Monsivais P.
        Why are some population interventions for diet and obesity more equitable and effective than others? The role of individual agency.
        PLoS Med. 2016; 13: e1001990
        • Moore G.
        • Audrey S.
        • Barker M.
        • Bond L.
        • Bonell C.
        • Cooper C.
        • et al.
        Process evaluation in complex public health intervention studies: the need for guidance.
        J Epidemiol Community Health. 2014; 68: 101-102
        • Waters E.
        • Hall B.J.
        • Armstrong R.
        • Doyle J.
        • Pettman T.L.
        • de Silva-Sanigorski A.
        Essential components of public health evidence reviews: capturing intervention complexity, implementation, economics and equity.
        J Public Health (Oxf). 2011; 33: 462-465
        • Kneale D.
        • Thomas J.
        • Harris K.
        Developing and optimising the use of logic models in systematic reviews: exploring practice and good practice in the use of programme theory in reviews.
        PLoS One. 2015; 10: e0142187
      1. Maden M, McMahon N, Booth A, Dickson R, Paisley S, Gabbay M. Methodological challenges when developing meta-frameworks in evidence synthesis: a worked example of a socio-economic health inequalities meta-framework. Manuscript in preparation.