Gender differences in the context of interventions for improving health literacy in migrants: a qualitative evidence synthesis.
Health literacy can be defined as a person's knowledge, motivation and competence in four steps of health-related information processing - accessing, understanding, appraising and applying health-related information. Individuals with experience of migration may encounter difficulties with or barriers to these steps that may, in turn, lead to poorer health outcomes than those of the general population. Moreover, women and men have different health challenges and needs and may respond differently to interventions aimed at improving health literacy. In this review, we use 'gender' rather than 'sex' to discuss differences between men and women because gender is a broad term referring to roles, identities, behaviours and relationships associated with being male or female.
The overall objective of this qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) was to explore and explain probable gender differences in the health literacy of migrants. The findings of this QES can provide a comprehensive understanding of the role that any gender differences can play in the development, delivery and effectiveness of interventions for improving the health literacy of female and male migrants. This qualitative evidence synthesis had the following specific objectives: - to explore whether there are any gender differences in the health literacy of migrants; - to identify factors that may underlie any gender differences in the four steps of health information processing (access, understand, appraise, and apply); - to explore and explain gender differences found - or not found - in the effectiveness of health literacy interventions assessed in the effectiveness review that is linked to this QES (Baumeister 2023); - to explain - through synthesising findings from Baumeister 2023 and this QES - to what extent gender- and migration-specific factors may play a role in the development and delivery of health literacy interventions.
We conducted electronic searches in MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Embase until May 2021. We searched trial registries and conference proceedings. We conducted extensive handsearching and contacted study authors to identify all relevant studies. There were no restrictions in our search in terms of gender, ethnicity or geography.
We included qualitative trial-sibling studies directly associated with the interventions identified in the effectiveness review that we undertook in parallel with this QES. The studies involved adults who were first-generation migrants (i.e. had a direct migration experience) and used qualitative methods for both data collection and analysis.
We extracted data into a form that we developed specifically for this review. We assessed methodological limitations in the studies using the CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme) Qualitative Studies) checklist. The data synthesis approach that we adopted was based on "best fit" framework synthesis. We used the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach to assess our level of confidence in each finding. We followed PRISMA-E guidelines to report our findings regarding equity.
We included 27 qualitative trial-sibling studies directly associated with 24 interventions assessed in a linked effectiveness review (Baumeister 2023), which we undertook in parallel with this QES. Eleven studies included only women, one included only men and 15 included both. Most studies were conducted in the USA or Canada and primarily included people of Latino/Latina and Hispanic origin. The second most common origin was Asian (e.g. Chinese, Korean, Punjabi). Some studies lacked information about participant recruitment and consideration of ethical aspects. Reflexivity was lacking: only one study contained a reflection on the relationship between the researcher and participants and its impact on the research. None of the studies addressed our primary objective. Only three studies provided findings on gender aspects; these studies were conducted with women only. Below, we present findings from these studies, with our level of confidence in the evidence added in brackets. Accessing health information We found that 'migrant women of Korean and Afghan origin preferred access to a female doctor' (moderate confidence) for personal reasons or due to cultural norms. Our second finding was that 'Afghan migrant women considered their husbands to be gatekeepers', as women of an Afghan background stressed that, in their culture, the men were the heads of the household and the decision-makers, including in personal health matters that affected their wives (low confidence). Our third finding was 'Afghan migrant women reported limited English proficiency' (moderate confidence), which impeded their access to health information and services. Understanding health information Female migrants of Afghan background reported limited writing and reading abilities, which we termed 'Afghan migrant women reported low literacy levels' (moderate confidence). Applying health information Women of Afghan and Mexican backgrounds stated that the 'women's role in the community' (moderate confidence) prevented them from maintaining their own health and making themselves a priority; this impeded applying health information. Appraising health information We did not find any evidence related to this step in health information processing. Other findings In the full text of this QES, we report on migration-specific factors in health literacy and additional aspects related to health literacy in general, as well as how participants assessed the effectiveness of health literacy interventions in our linked effectiveness review. Moreover, we synthesised qualitative data with findings of the linked effectiveness review to report on gender- and migration-specific aspects that need to be taken into account in the development, design and delivery of health literacy interventions.
The question of whether gender differences exist in the health literacy of migrants cannot be fully answered in this qualitative evidence synthesis. Gender-specific findings were presented in only three of the 27 included studies. These findings represented only Afghan, Mexican and Korean women's views and were probably culturally-specific. We were unable to explore male migrants' perceived health literacy due to the notable lack of research involving migrant men. Research on male migrants' perceived health literacy and their health-related challenges is needed, as well as more research on potential gender roles and differences in the context of migration. Moreover, there is a need for more research in different countries and healthcare systems to create a more comprehensive picture of health literacy in the context of migration.
Aldin A
，Baumeister PhD A
，Chakraverty D
，Monsef I
，Noyes J
，Kalbe E
，Woopen C
，Skoetz N
... -
《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》
Falls prevention interventions for community-dwelling older adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of benefits, harms, and patient values and preferences.
About 20-30% of older adults (≥ 65 years old) experience one or more falls each year, and falls are associated with substantial burden to the health care system, individuals, and families from resulting injuries, fractures, and reduced functioning and quality of life. Many interventions for preventing falls have been studied, and their effectiveness, factors relevant to their implementation, and patient preferences may determine which interventions to use in primary care. The aim of this set of reviews was to inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (task force) on fall prevention interventions. We undertook three systematic reviews to address questions about the following: (i) the benefits and harms of interventions, (ii) how patients weigh the potential outcomes (outcome valuation), and (iii) patient preferences for different types of interventions, and their attributes, shown to offer benefit (intervention preferences).
We searched four databases for benefits and harms (MEDLINE, Embase, AgeLine, CENTRAL, to August 25, 2023) and three for outcome valuation and intervention preferences (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, to June 9, 2023). For benefits and harms, we relied heavily on a previous review for studies published until 2016. We also searched trial registries, references of included studies, and recent reviews. Two reviewers independently screened studies. The population of interest was community-dwelling adults ≥ 65 years old. We did not limit eligibility by participant fall history. The task force rated several outcomes, decided on their eligibility, and provided input on the effect thresholds to apply for each outcome (fallers, falls, injurious fallers, fractures, hip fractures, functional status, health-related quality of life, long-term care admissions, adverse effects, serious adverse effects). For benefits and harms, we included a broad range of non-pharmacological interventions relevant to primary care. Although usual care was the main comparator of interest, we included studies comparing interventions head-to-head and conducted a network meta-analysis (NMAs) for each outcome, enabling analysis of interventions lacking direct comparisons to usual care. For benefits and harms, we included randomized controlled trials with a minimum 3-month follow-up and reporting on one of our fall outcomes (fallers, falls, injurious fallers); for the other questions, we preferred quantitative data but considered qualitative findings to fill gaps in evidence. No date limits were applied for benefits and harms, whereas for outcome valuation and intervention preferences we included studies published in 2000 or later. All data were extracted by one trained reviewer and verified for accuracy and completeness. For benefits and harms, we relied on the previous review team's risk-of-bias assessments for benefit outcomes, but otherwise, two reviewers independently assessed the risk of bias (within and across study). For the other questions, one reviewer verified another's assessments. Consensus was used, with adjudication by a lead author when necessary. A coding framework, modified from the ProFANE taxonomy, classified interventions and their attributes (e.g., supervision, delivery format, duration/intensity). For benefit outcomes, we employed random-effects NMA using a frequentist approach and a consistency model. Transitivity and coherence were assessed using meta-regressions and global and local coherence tests, as well as through graphical display and descriptive data on the composition of the nodes with respect to major pre-planned effect modifiers. We assessed heterogeneity using prediction intervals. For intervention-related adverse effects, we pooled proportions except for vitamin D for which we considered data in the control groups and undertook random-effects pairwise meta-analysis using a relative risk (any adverse effects) or risk difference (serious adverse effects). For outcome valuation, we pooled disutilities (representing the impact of a negative event, e.g. fall, on one's usual quality of life, with 0 = no impact and 1 = death and ~ 0.05 indicating important disutility) from the EQ-5D utility measurement using the inverse variance method and a random-effects model and explored heterogeneity. When studies only reported other data, we compared the findings with our main analysis. For intervention preferences, we used a coding schema identifying whether there were strong, clear, no, or variable preferences within, and then across, studies. We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using CINeMA for benefit outcomes and GRADE for all other outcomes.
A total of 290 studies were included across the reviews, with two studies included in multiple questions. For benefits and harms, we included 219 trials reporting on 167,864 participants and created 59 interventions (nodes). Transitivity and coherence were assessed as adequate. Across eight NMAs, the number of contributing trials ranged between 19 and 173, and the number of interventions ranged from 19 to 57. Approximately, half of the interventions in each network had at least low certainty for benefit. The fallers outcome had the highest number of interventions with moderate certainty for benefit (18/57). For the non-fall outcomes (fractures, hip fracture, long-term care [LTC] admission, functional status, health-related quality of life), many interventions had very low certainty evidence, often from lack of data. We prioritized findings from 21 interventions where there was moderate certainty for at least some benefit. Fourteen of these had a focus on exercise, the majority being supervised (for > 2 sessions) and of long duration (> 3 months), and with balance/resistance and group Tai Chi interventions generally having the most outcomes with at least low certainty for benefit. None of the interventions having moderate certainty evidence focused on walking. Whole-body vibration or home-hazard assessment (HHA) plus exercise provided to everyone showed moderate certainty for some benefit. No multifactorial intervention alone showed moderate certainty for any benefit. Six interventions only had very-low certainty evidence for the benefit outcomes. Two interventions had moderate certainty of harmful effects for at least one benefit outcome, though the populations across studies were at high risk for falls. Vitamin D and most single-component exercise interventions are probably associated with minimal adverse effects. Some uncertainty exists about possible adverse effects from other interventions. For outcome valuation, we included 44 studies of which 34 reported EQ-5D disutilities. Admission to long-term care had the highest disutility (1.0), but the evidence was rated as low certainty. Both fall-related hip (moderate certainty) and non-hip (low certainty) fracture may result in substantial disutility (0.53 and 0.57) in the first 3 months after injury. Disutility for both hip and non-hip fractures is probably lower 12 months after injury (0.16 and 0.19, with high and moderate certainty, respectively) compared to within the first 3 months. No study measured the disutility of an injurious fall. Fractures are probably more important than either falls (0.09 over 12 months) or functional status (0.12). Functional status may be somewhat more important than falls. For intervention preferences, 29 studies (9 qualitative) reported on 17 comparisons among single-component interventions showing benefit. Exercise interventions focusing on balance and/or resistance training appear to be clearly preferred over Tai Chi and other forms of exercise (e.g., yoga, aerobic). For exercise programs in general, there is probably variability among people in whether they prefer group or individual delivery, though there was high certainty that individual was preferred over group delivery of balance/resistance programs. Balance/resistance exercise may be preferred over education, though the evidence was low certainty. There was low certainty for a slight preference for education over cognitive-behavioral therapy, and group education may be preferred over individual education.
To prevent falls among community-dwelling older adults, evidence is most certain for benefit, at least over 1-2 years, from supervised, long-duration balance/resistance and group Tai Chi interventions, whole-body vibration, high-intensity/dose education or cognitive-behavioral therapy, and interventions of comprehensive multifactorial assessment with targeted treatment plus HHA, HHA plus exercise, or education provided to everyone. Adding other interventions to exercise does not appear to substantially increase benefits. Overall, effects appear most applicable to those with elevated fall risk. Choice among effective interventions that are available may best depend on individual patient preferences, though when implementing new balance/resistance programs delivering individual over group sessions when feasible may be most acceptable. Data on more patient-important outcomes including fall-related fractures and adverse effects would be beneficial, as would studies focusing on equity-deserving populations and on programs delivered virtually.
Not registered.
Pillay J
，Gaudet LA
，Saba S
，Vandermeer B
，Ashiq AR
，Wingert A
，Hartling L
... -
《Systematic Reviews》
ResearchGate
(全网免费下载)
钛学术
(全网免费下载)
