6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

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

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references225

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement

          David Moher and colleagues introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Closing the gap in a generation: health equity through action on the social determinants of health.

            The Commission on Social Determinants of Health, created to marshal the evidence on what can be done to promote health equity and to foster a global movement to achieve it, is a global collaboration of policy makers, researchers, and civil society, led by commissioners with a unique blend of political, academic, and advocacy experience. The focus of attention is on countries at all levels of income and development. The commission launched its final report on August 28, 2008. This paper summarises the key findings and recommendations; the full list is in the final report.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Evidence-based, cost-effective interventions: how many newborn babies can we save?

              In this second article of the neonatal survival series, we identify 16 interventions with proven efficacy (implementation under ideal conditions) for neonatal survival and combine them into packages for scaling up in health systems, according to three service delivery modes (outreach, family-community, and facility-based clinical care). All the packages of care are cost effective compared with single interventions. Universal (99%) coverage of these interventions could avert an estimated 41-72% of neonatal deaths worldwide. At 90% coverage, intrapartum and postnatal packages have similar effects on neonatal mortality--two-fold to three-fold greater than that of antenatal care. However, running costs are two-fold higher for intrapartum than for postnatal care. A combination of universal--ie, for all settings--outreach and family-community care at 90% coverage averts 18-37% of neonatal deaths. Most of this benefit is derived from family-community care, and greater effect is seen in settings with very high neonatal mortality. Reductions in neonatal mortality that exceed 50% can be achieved with an integrated, high-coverage programme of universal outreach and family-community care, consisting of 12% and 26%, respectively, of total running costs, plus universal facility-based clinical services, which make up 62% of the total cost. Early success in averting neonatal deaths is possible in settings with high mortality and weak health systems through outreach and family-community care, including health education to improve home-care practices, to create demand for skilled care, and to improve care seeking. Simultaneous expansion of clinical care for babies and mothers is essential to achieve the reduction in neonatal deaths needed to meet the Millennium Development Goal for child survival.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                146518
                Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
                Wiley
                14651858
                January 2022
                January 18 2022
                : 2022
                : 1
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Methods Centre; Bruyère Research Institute; Ottawa Canada
                [2 ]School of Epidemiology and Public Health; University of Ottawa; Ottawa Canada
                [3 ]Bruyère Research Institute; University of Ottawa; Ottawa Canada
                [4 ]Bruyère Research Institute; Ottawa Canada
                [5 ]Telfer School of Management; University of Ottawa; Ottawa Canada
                [6 ]Health Canada; Federal Government of Canada; Ottawa Canada
                [7 ]School of Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences; University of Ottawa; Ottawa Canada
                [8 ]Internal Medicine Department; La Princesa Hospital; Madrid Spain
                [9 ]Department of Medicine; Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa; Ottawa Canada
                [10 ]School of Epidemiology and Public Health; Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa; Marmora Canada
                [11 ]Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine; University of Ottawa; Ottawa Canada
                [12 ]Department of Social & Environmental Health Research, Faculty of Public Health & Policy; London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine; London UK
                Article
                10.1002/14651858.MR000028.pub3
                35040487
                03ebe16d-e8fa-40d2-9909-4231573fbfef
                © 2022
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article