Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: The lack of resources in Low/Middle income countries (LMIC) means that evidence based health care is much more important and vital to prevent wasting resources on ineffective interventions in these countries.
Objectives: 1. To identify Cochrane Reviews which are relevant to developing countries (DC). 2. To determine how these reviews tackled the developing countries setting.
Methods: We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Issue 2, 2007for studies including either the term Developing Countries or LMIC. We screened the result to identify in which part of the review the (DC) setting was considered. We divided them into those including setting in the title or inclusion criteria, those which discussed it in the background, discussion or conclusion and those which considered it differently in the methodology (i.e. a subgroup analysis for people with different socio-economic situation). We will prepare a list of Cochrane Reviews relevant to DC and guidelines for preparing Cochrane reviews which are also applicable in DC.
Results: A search of the Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2007 retrieved 420 relevant reviews in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. At May 2007, the initial pilot phase of this project has shown that authors consider the issue of the Developing Countries in different phases of a review and in different parts of a review: Title, Background, Inclusion Criteria, Discussion, Conclusion and so on. The review title may be a priority specifically in LMIC or it may be restricted to participants from DC (or economically disadvantaged group). The background may show that the problem has a different prevalence or mortality in LMIC and HI, or the intervention is performed differently in High Income (HI) and LMIC. Moreover, the cost effectiveness of the intervention would be more important for LMICs. Some authors also adapt some methodological issues to deal with the different settings (Developing and Developed countries). One example is to include socioeconomic inequalities in health as outcomes. Another possibility is to broaden the search strategy of the search databases with studies specifically from Developing Countries like the National Tuberculosis Institute (Bangalore, India). It was also observed that the outcomes may differ in DC setting as family care may be the main form of care for patients in some DC. The challenges in implementing effective interventions may differ in LMIC and HI countries and this topic was considered in detail in the discussion and conclusion of some reviews.
Conclusions: Full results of the assessment of the identified Cochrane Reviews will be completed by October 2007. Up to now, the results have shown that there are different ways and methods to make Cochrane reviews also applicable for clinicians, patients and health policy makers of DC. Based on this study, The Cochrane Developing Countries Network intends to provide guidelines for Cochrane Reviewers describing the different ways to perform the Cochrane reviews applicable for people from DC.
Objectives: 1. To identify Cochrane Reviews which are relevant to developing countries (DC). 2. To determine how these reviews tackled the developing countries setting.
Methods: We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Issue 2, 2007for studies including either the term Developing Countries or LMIC. We screened the result to identify in which part of the review the (DC) setting was considered. We divided them into those including setting in the title or inclusion criteria, those which discussed it in the background, discussion or conclusion and those which considered it differently in the methodology (i.e. a subgroup analysis for people with different socio-economic situation). We will prepare a list of Cochrane Reviews relevant to DC and guidelines for preparing Cochrane reviews which are also applicable in DC.
Results: A search of the Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2007 retrieved 420 relevant reviews in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. At May 2007, the initial pilot phase of this project has shown that authors consider the issue of the Developing Countries in different phases of a review and in different parts of a review: Title, Background, Inclusion Criteria, Discussion, Conclusion and so on. The review title may be a priority specifically in LMIC or it may be restricted to participants from DC (or economically disadvantaged group). The background may show that the problem has a different prevalence or mortality in LMIC and HI, or the intervention is performed differently in High Income (HI) and LMIC. Moreover, the cost effectiveness of the intervention would be more important for LMICs. Some authors also adapt some methodological issues to deal with the different settings (Developing and Developed countries). One example is to include socioeconomic inequalities in health as outcomes. Another possibility is to broaden the search strategy of the search databases with studies specifically from Developing Countries like the National Tuberculosis Institute (Bangalore, India). It was also observed that the outcomes may differ in DC setting as family care may be the main form of care for patients in some DC. The challenges in implementing effective interventions may differ in LMIC and HI countries and this topic was considered in detail in the discussion and conclusion of some reviews.
Conclusions: Full results of the assessment of the identified Cochrane Reviews will be completed by October 2007. Up to now, the results have shown that there are different ways and methods to make Cochrane reviews also applicable for clinicians, patients and health policy makers of DC. Based on this study, The Cochrane Developing Countries Network intends to provide guidelines for Cochrane Reviewers describing the different ways to perform the Cochrane reviews applicable for people from DC.