Search

Background: High‐income countries offer social assistance (welfare) programs to help alleviate poverty for people with little or no income. These programs have become increasingly conditional and stringent in recent decades based on the premise that transitioning people from government support to paid work will improve their circumstances. However, many people end up with low‐paying and precarious jobs that may cause more poverty because they lose benefits such as housing subsidies and health and dental insurance, while incurring job‐related expenses. Conditional assistance programs are also expensive to administer and cause stigma. A guaranteed basic income (GBI) has been proposed as a more effective approach for alleviating poverty, and several experiments have been conducted in high‐income countries to investigate whether GBI leads to improved outcomes compared to existing social programs. Objectives: The aim of this review was to conduct a synthesis of quantitative evidence on GBI interventions in high‐income countries, to compare the effectiveness of various types of GBI versus "usual care" (including existing social assistance programs) in improving poverty‐related outcomes. Search Methods: Searches of 16 academic databases were conducted in May 2022, using both keywords and database‐specific controlled vocabulary, without limits or restrictions on language or date. Sources of gray literature (conference, governmental, and institutional websites) were searched in September 2022. We also searched reference lists of review articles, citations of included articles, and tables of contents of relevant journals in September 2022. Hand searching for recent publications was conducted until December 2022. Selection Criteria: We included all quantitative study designs except cross‐sectional (at one timepoint), with or without control groups. We included studies in high income countries with any population and with interventions meeting our criteria for GBI: unconditional, with regular payments in cash (not in‐kind) that were fixed or predictable in amount. Although two primary outcomes of interest were selected a priori (food insecurity, and poverty level assessed using official, national, or international measures), we did not screen studies on the basis of reported outcomes because it was not possible to define all potentially relevant poverty‐related outcomes in advance. Data Collection and Analysis: We followed the Campbell Collaboration conduct and reporting guidelines to ensure a rigorous methodology. The risk of bias was assessed across seven domains: confounding, selection, attrition, motivation, implementation, measurement, and analysis/reporting. We conducted meta‐analyses where results could be combined; otherwise, we presented the results in tables. We reported effect estimates as standard mean differences (SMDs) if the included studies reported them or provided sufficient data for us to calculate them. To compare the effects of different types of interventions, we developed a GBI typology based on the characteristics of experimental interventions as well as theoretical conceptualizations of GBI. Eligible poverty‐related outcomes were classified into categories and sub‐categories, to facilitate the synthesis of the individual findings. Because most of the included studies analyzed experiments conducted by other researchers, it was necessary to divide our analysis according to the "experiment" stage (i.e. design, recruitment, intervention, data collection) and the "study" stage (data analysis and reporting of results). Main Results: Our searches yielded 24,476 records from databases and 80 from other sources. After screening by title and abstract, the full texts of 294 potentially eligible articles were retrieved and screened, resulting in 27 included studies on 10 experiments. Eight of the experiments were RCTs, one included both an RCT site and a "saturation" site, and one used a repeated cross‐sectional design. The duration ranged from one to 5 years. The control groups in all 10 experiments received "usual care" (i.e. no GBI intervention). The total number of participants was unknown because some of the studies did not report exact sample sizes. Of the studies that did, the smallest had 138 participants and the largest had 8019. The risk of bias assessments found "some concerns" for at least one domain in all 27 studies and "high risk" for at least one domain in 25 studies. The risk of bias was assessed as high in 21 studies due to attrition and in 22 studies due to analysis and reporting bias. To compare the interventions, we developed a classification framework of five GBI types, four of which were implemented in the experiments, and one that is used in new experiments now underway. The included studies reported 176 poverty‐related outcomes, including one pre‐defined primary outcome: food insecurity. The second primary outcome (poverty level assessed using official, national, or international measures) was not reported in any of the included studies. We classified the reported outcomes into seven categories: food insecurity (as a category), economic/material, physical health, psychological/mental health, social, educational, and individual choice/agency. Food insecurity was reported in two studies, both showing improvements (SMD = −0.57, 95% CI: −0.65 to −0.49, and SMD = −0.41, 95% CI: −0.57 to −0.26) which were not pooled because of different study designs. We conducted meta‐analyses on four secondary outcomes that were reported in more than one study: subjective financial well‐being, self‐rated overall physical health, self‐rated life satisfaction, and self‐rated mental distress. Improvements were reported, except for overall physical health or if the intervention was similar to existing social assistance. The results for the remaining 170 outcomes, each reported in only one study, were summarized in tables by category and subcategory. Adverse effects were reported in some studies, but only for specific subgroups of participants, and not consistently, so these results may have been due to chance. Authors' Conclusions: The results of the included studies were difficult to synthesize because of the heterogeneity in the reported outcomes. This was due in part to poverty being multidimensional, so outcomes covered various aspects of life (economic, social, psychological, educational, agency, mental and physical health). Evidence from future studies would be easier to assess if outcomes were measured using more common, validated instruments. Based on our analysis of the included studies, a supplemental type of GBI (provided along with existing programs) may be effective in alleviating poverty‐related outcomes. This approach may also be safer than a wholesale reform of existing social assistance approaches, which could have unintended consequences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Nutrition North Canada (NNC) program, introduced in April 2011 is a federal strategy to improve access to perishable, nutritious foods for remote and isolated communities in northern Canada by subsidising retailers to provide price reductions at the point of purchase. As of March 2023, 123 communities are eligible for the program. To evaluate existing evidence and research on the NNC program to inform policy decisions to improve the effectiveness of NNC. A scoping review of peer-reviewed articles was conducted in ten databases along with a supplemental grey literature search of government and non-government reports published between 2011 and 2022. The search yielded 172 publications for screening, of which 42 were included in the analysis. Narrative thematic evidence synthesis yielded 104 critiques and 341 recommendations of the NNC program across eight themes. The most-identified recommendations focus on transparency, communication, and support for harvesting, hunting, and community food initiatives. This review highlights recommendations informed by the literature to address critiques of the NNC program to improve food security, increase access to perishable and non-perishable items, and support community-based food initiatives among eligible communities. The review also identifies priority areas for future policy directions such as additional support for education initiatives, communication and transparency amidst program changes, and food price regulations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Household food insecurity (HFI) is a persistent public health issue in Canada that may have disproportionately affected certain subgroups of the population during the COVID-19 pandemic. The purpose of this systematic review is to report on the prevalence of HFI in the Canadian general population and in subpopulations after the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020. Methods: Sixteen databases were searched from 1 March 2020 to 5 May 2021. Abstract and full-text screening was conducted by one reviewer and the inclusions verified by a second reviewer. Only studies that reported on the prevalence of HFI in Canadian households were included. Data extraction, risk of bias and certainty of the evidence assessments were conducted by two reviewers. Results: Of 8986 studies identified in the search, four studies, three of which collected data in April and May 2020, were included. The evidence concerning the prevalence of HFI during the COVID-19 pandemic is very uncertain. The prevalence of HFI (marginal to severe) ranged from 14% to 17% in the general population. Working-age populations aged 18 to 44 years had higher HFI (range: 18%-23%) than adults aged 60+ years (5%-11%). Some of the highest HFI prevalence was observed among households with children (range: 19%-22%), those who had lost their jobs or stopped working due to COVID-19 (24%-39%) and those with job insecurity (26%). Conclusion: The evidence suggests that the COVID-19 pandemic may have slightly increased total household food insecurity in Canada during the pandemic, especially in populations that were already vulnerable to HFI. There is a need to continue to monitor HFI in Canada. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Serbia has proclaimed access to healthcare as a human right. In a context wherein the Roma population are disadvantaged, the aim of this study was to assess whether the Roma population are able to effectively access primary care services, and if not, what barriers prevent them from doing so. The history of the Roma in Serbia is described in detail so as to provide a context for their current vulnerable position. Methods Disaggregated data were analyzed from three population groups in Serbia; the general population, the Roma population, and the poorest quintile of the general population not including the Roma. The effective coverage framework, which incorporates availability, affordability, accessibility, acceptability, and effectiveness of health services, was used to structure the secondary data analysis. Acute respiratory infection (ARI) in children less than five years of age was used as an example as this is the leading cause of death in children under 5 years old in Serbia. Results Roma children were significantly more likely to experience an ARI than either the general population or the poorest quintile of the general population, not including the Roma. All three population groups were equally likely to not receive the correct treatment regime of antibiotics. An analysis of the factors that affect quality of access to health services reveal that personal documentation is a statistically significant problem; availability of health services is not an issue that disproportionately affects the Roma; however the geographical accessibility and affordability are substantive issues that disproportionately affect the Roma population. Affordability of services affected the Roma and the poorest quintile and affordability of medications significantly affected all three population groups. With regards to acceptability, mothers from all three population groups are equally likely to recognize the importance of seeking treatment. Conclusions The Roma should be assisted in applying for personal documentation, the geographical accessibility of clinics needs to be addressed, and the costs of healthcare visits and medications should be reviewed. Areas for improvement specific to ARI are the costs of antibiotics and the diagnostic accuracy of providers. A range of policy recommendations are outlined.

Abstract OMERACT is the acronym for an international, informally organized network initiated in 1992 aimed at improving outcome measurement in rheumatology. Chaired by an executive committee, it organizes consensus conferences in a 2-yearly cycle that circles the globe. Data driven recommendations are prepared and updated by expert working groups. Recommendations include core sets of measures for most of the major rheumatologic conditions. Since 2002 patients have been actively engaged in the process.

The author reflects on the exposure-crossover design as a method for studying sustained changes in recurrent events. He states that the design was demonstrated using data of patients from Ontario, Canada who had motor vehicle accident. He refers to the findings of Busija and colleagues who used a mixed-methods approach to describe the personal burden of osteoarthritis patients, and Crutzen and colleague who found that differential attrition did not occur in randomized controlled trial.

Background: Generic health status measures are commonly used in the evaluation of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. The reliability, validity, and sensitivity of the instruments in the assessment of quality of life (QOL) in RA, and how they correlate to other clinical measurements, have longbeen questioned., Objective: Analyze the performance of a commonly used generic health status measure, the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form (SF-36), against the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology(OMERACT) criteria., Methods: Data were analyzed from 7 double-blind, randomized controlled trials that examined the effectiveness of 1 or more interventions in RA. The primary outcome measures evaluated were the Mental and Physical Component Scores of the SF-36. Comparators were 1 or more of the following: the Health Assessment Questionnaire scores, tender joint count (TJC), the Disease Activity Score, and the American College of Rheumatology Responder Index (ACR20,ACR50, ACR70). The ability to detect a treatment effect in the study outcomes was evaluated using 3 measures: treatment difference,standardized response mean, and relative efficiency in relation to the TJC., Results: As a generic QOL measure, the SF-36 is better suited to capture the holistic health of the patient, as reflected in the World Health Organization definition of health as being not only the avoidance of disease but the physical,emotional, and social well-being of the patient. Furthermore, use of the SF-36 permits comparisons of physical and mental aspects of QOL in the RA patient population, as well as comparisons of QOL parameters between patients with RA, other patient groups, and the general population., Conclusion: The SF-36 deserves serious consideration for inclusion in the core set of outcomes in RA trials.