Is health equity considered in systematic reviews of the cochrane musculoskeletal group?

• Published in: Arthritis and rheumatism 2008-11, Vol.59 (11), p.1603-1610
• Main Authors: Tugwell, Peter, Maxwell, Lara, Welch, Vivian, Kristjansson, Elizabeth, Petticrew, Mark, Wells, George, Buchbinder, Rachelle, Suarez‐Almazor, Maria E., Nowlan, Marie‐Andrée, Ueffing, Erin, Khan, Maryam, Shea, Bev, Tsikata, Setorme
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Arthritis, Rheumatoid - therapy; Biological and medical sciences; Continental Population Groups; Diseases of the osteoarticular system; Educational Status; Health Status Disparities; Humans; Medical sciences; Occupations; Prejudice; Review Literature as Topic; Social Class; Socioeconomic Factors
• ISSN: 0004-3591; 0893-7524; 1529-0131; 1529-0123
• DOI: 10.1002/art.24206

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 opportunity to provide guidance to systematic review authors on incorporating equity considerations into their reviews.