• LOGIN
    Login with username and password
Repository logo

BORIS Portal

Bern Open Repository and Information System

  • Publications
  • Theses
  • Research Data
  • Projects
  • Organizations
  • Researchers
  • More
  • Statistics
  • LOGIN
    Login with username and password
Repository logo
Unibern.ch
  1. Home
  2. Publications
  3. GRADE equity guidelines 3: considering health equity in GRADE guideline development: rating the certainty of synthesized evidence.
 

GRADE equity guidelines 3: considering health equity in GRADE guideline development: rating the certainty of synthesized evidence.

Options
  • Details
  • Files
BORIS DOI
10.7892/boris.107280
Publisher DOI
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.01.015
PubMed ID
28389397
Description
OBJECTIVES

The aim of this paper is to describe a conceptual framework for how to consider health equity in the Grading Recommendations Assessment and Development Evidence (GRADE) guideline development process.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Consensus-based guidance developed by the GRADE working group members and other methodologists.

RESULTS

We developed consensus-based guidance to help address health equity when rating the certainty of synthesized evidence (i.e., quality of evidence). When health inequity is determined to be a concern by stakeholders, we propose five methods for explicitly assessing health equity: (1) include health equity as an outcome; (2) consider patient-important outcomes relevant to health equity; (3) assess differences in the relative effect size of the treatment; (4) assess differences in baseline risk and the differing impacts on absolute effects; and (5) assess indirectness of evidence to disadvantaged populations and/or settings.

CONCLUSION

The most important priority for research on health inequity and guidelines is to identify and document examples where health equity has been considered explicitly in guidelines. Although there is a weak scientific evidence base for assessing health equity, this should not discourage the explicit consideration of how guidelines and recommendations affect the most vulnerable members of society.
Date of Publication
2017-10
Publication Type
Article
Subject(s)
600 - Technology::610 - Medicine & health
300 - Social sciences, sociology & anthropology::360 - Social problems & social services
Keyword(s)
Applicability GRADE Guidelines Health Indirectness Meta-analysis Subgroup analysis Systematic review equity
Language(s)
en
Contributor(s)
Welch, Vivian A
Akl, Elie A
Pottie, Kevin
Ansari, Mohammed T
Briel, Matthias
Christensen, Robin
Dans, Antonio
Dans, Leonila
Eslava-Schmalbach, Javier
Guyatt, Gordon
Hultcrantz, Monica
Jull, Janet
Katikireddi, Srinivasa Vittal
Lang, Eddy
Matovinovic, Elizabeth
Meerpohl, Joerg J
Morton, Rachael L
Mosdol, Annhild
Murad, M Hassan
Petkovic, Jennifer
Schünemann, Holger
Sharaf, Ravi
Shea, Bev
Singh, Jasvinder A
Solà, Ivan
Stanev, Roger
Stein, Airton
Thabaneii, Lehana
Tonia, Thomaiorcid-logo
Institut für Sozial- und Präventivmedizin (ISPM)
Tristan, Mario
Vitols, Sigurd
Watine, Joseph
Tugwell, Peter
Additional Credits
Institut für Sozial- und Präventivmedizin (ISPM)
Series
Journal of clinical epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier
ISSN
0895-4356
Access(Rights)
open.access
Show full item
BORIS Portal
Bern Open Repository and Information System
Build: 9f4e9a [ 5.02. 18:48]
Explore
  • Projects
  • Funding
  • Publications
  • Research Data
  • Organizations
  • Researchers
  • Audiovisual Material
  • Software & other digital items
More
  • About BORIS Portal
  • Send Feedback
  • Cookie settings
  • Service Policy
Follow us on
  • Mastodon
  • YouTube
  • LinkedIn
UniBe logo