Poor reporting limited consideration of EDI in the Australian guidelines for the clinical care of people with COVID-19.

J Clin Epidemiol

National Clinical Evidence Taskforce, Australian Living Evidence Collaboration, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. Electronic address:

Published: June 2024

AI Article Synopsis

  • The paper discusses the importance of addressing equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) in healthcare guidelines to ensure high-quality care during the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on biological and social determinants of health (BSDH).
  • A review of 115 peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials revealed that BSDH characteristics were often poorly reported, with geographical location being the only consistently reported factor.
  • The study concludes that improving the consideration of EDI issues is essential for developing effective healthcare guidelines that meet diverse community needs.

Article Abstract

Objectives: Actively addressing issues of equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) in healthcare guidelines provides an important avenue ensure that individuals and communities receive high-quality healthcare that meets their needs. In 2020, the National Clinical Evidence Taskforce was charged with developing Australian living guidelines for COVID-19 (the Guidelines). It was intended that the Guidelines would consider the biological and social determinants of health (BSDH) underpinning evidence-based recommendations for of the treatment of COVID-19. The objective of this paper is to describe the evidence available on BSDH that is reported in published trials of disease-modifying therapies for COVID-19.

Study Design And Setting: Published papers of randomized controlled trials that informed clinical recommendations (for and against drug therapies for COVID-19) in the Guidelines were reviewed retrospectively using a case series design. We extracted reported characteristics relating to BSDH. These included age, sex, gender, geographical location, ethnicity (including indigenous), disability, migrant status, income, education, employment, and social support. A descriptive analysis was conducted to illustrate the characteristics available for use in guideline development.

Results: A total of 115 peer-reviewed papers describing randomized control trials of drug interventions for the treatment of COVID-19 were included. BSDH characteristics were poorly reported. Geographical location of the study was the only category reported in all papers. While age and sex were reported in most papers (n = 109 and 108, respectively), ethnicity was reported in only one-third of papers (n = 40), social support was reported in only three papers, and employment in one paper. No paper reported on gender, disability, migrant status, income, or education.

Conclusion: Consideration of EDI issues is a crucial component of guideline development. Although these issues were widely recognized to impact on health outcomes from COVID-19, reporting of these characteristics was poor in COVID trials. Urgent action is needed to improve reporting of EDI characteristics if they are to be meaningfully considered in guideline processes, and health inequity is overcome.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111361DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

consideration edi
8
covid-19 guidelines
8
treatment covid-19
8
reported
8
age sex
8
geographical location
8
disability migrant
8
migrant status
8
status income
8
social support
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!