Overcoming health inequalities: A participative evaluation framework fit for the task

Aims: Healthcare providers are confronted with the claim that the distribution of health and healthcare provision is inherently unfair. There is also a growing awareness that the tools and methodologies applied in tackling health inequalities require further development. Evaluations as well as interventions usually focus on population-based indicators, but do not always provide guidance for frontline service evaluation and delivery. That is why the evaluation framework presented here focuses on facilitating local service development, service provider and user involvement, and the adequate representation of different population groups. Methods: A participative evaluation framework was constructed by drawing on six common success characteristics extrapolated from the published literature and policies on health inequalities. This framework was then applied to an intervention addressing women’s psychosocial health needs in order to demonstrate its utility in practice. Results: The framework provides healthcare professionals with an evidence-based tool for evaluating projects or programmes targeting health inequalities in ways that are responsive to local contexts and stakeholders. Conclusion: This participative evaluation framework supports the identification of meaningful psychosocial and contextual indicators for assessing the diverse health and social needs of service users. It uses multi-dimensional indicators to assess health and social care needs, to inform local service development, and to facilitate the exchange of knowledge between researchers, service providers, and service users. The inherent responsiveness enables rigorous yet flexible action on local health inequalities.

Indirect comparisons of treatments based on systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials

Randomised controlled trials are the most effective way to differentiate between the effects of competing interventions. However, head-to-head studies are unlikely to have been conducted for all competing interventions.

Establishing a minimum dataset for prospective registration of systematic reviews: an international consultation

Background: In response to growing recognition of the value of prospective registration of systematic review protocols, we planned to develop a web-based open access international register. In order for the register to fulfil its aims of reducing unplanned duplication, reducing publication bias, and providing greater transparency, it was important to ensure the appropriate data were collected. We therefore undertook a consultation process with experts in the field to identify a minimum dataset for registration. Methods and Findings: A two-round electronic modified Delphi survey design was used. The international panel surveyed included experts from areas relevant to systematic review including commissioners, clinical and academic researchers, methodologists, statisticians, information specialists, journal editors and users of systematic reviews. Direct invitations to participate were sent out to 315 people in the first round and 322 in the second round. Responses to an open invitation to participate were collected separately. There were 194 (143 invited and 51 open) respondents with a 100% completion rate in the first round and 209 (169 invited and 40 open) respondents with a 91% completion rate in the second round. In the second round, 113 (54%) of the participants reported having previously taken part in the first round. Participants were asked to indicate whether a series of potential items should be designated as optional or required registration items, or should not be included in the register. After the second round, a 70% or greater agreement was reached on the designation of 30 of 36 items. Conclusions: The results of the Delphi exercise have established a dataset of 22 required items for the prospective registration of systematic reviews, and 18 optional items. The dataset captures the key attributes of review design as well as the administrative details necessary for registration.

Review: M. Dougan and E. Spaventa (eds.), Social Welfare and EU Law (Hart, 2005)

Review of edited collection.

Risk, Recovery and Capacity: Competing or Complementary Approaches to Mental Health Social Work

Mental health social workers have a central role in providing support to people with mental health problems and in the use of coercion aimed at dealing with risk. Mental health services have traditionally focused on monitoring symptoms and ascertaining the risks people may present to themselves and/or others. This well-intentioned but negative focus on deficits has contributed to stigma, discrimination and exclusion experienced by service users. Emerging understandings of risk also suggest that our inability to accurately predict the future makes risk a problematic foundation for compulsory intervention. It is therefore argued that alternative approaches are needed to make issues of power and inequality transparent. This article focuses on two areas of practice: the use of recovery based approaches, which promote supported decision making and inclusion; and the assessment of a person’s ability to make decisions, their mental capacity, as a less discriminatory gateway criterion than risk for compulsory intervention.