Skip to main content

Table 4 Socioeconomic status (SES): Proportion of respondents judging important differences exist for each question, across 10 systematic reviews

From: Systematic reviews need to consider applicability to disadvantaged populations: inter-rater agreement for a health equity plausibility algorithm

  Proportion of respondents judging important differences exist across SES
  Average rating Question 1: Patient differences Question 2: Delivery of intervention Question 3: Comparator Description in systematic review
INTER-RATER AGREEMENT on Q1 ≥70%
Mass media for HIV testing 87% 100% 83% 78% Radio and television interventions can be used in literate and non-literate communities; therefore applicable to LMIC
Antidepressants for depression in primary care 84% 92% 92% 67% SES not discussed
Population tobacco control 84% 91% 74% 87% Price increases are more effective in low-income populations. Smoking restrictions: no SES differences
Hand washing for preventing diarrhoea 89% 83% 92% 92% SES not discussed
INTER-RATER AGREEMENT on Q1 <70%
Surgery for age-related cataract 86% 75% 100% 83% In developing countries, access to expensive machines, volume of surgeries and skill of surgeons may be lower
Psychological therapy for PTSD 75% 78% 91% 57% SES not discussed
ACT for malaria 72% 75% 92% 50% SES not discussed
Primary safety belt laws 72% 58% 100% 58% More effective for lower use groups (e.g. African-American and Hispanic in USA)
First line anti-hypertensives 67% 65% 83% 52% SES differences not assessed.
Vaccines MMR in children 67% 50% 75% 75% SES not discussed. “effectiveness demonstrated world-wide”
Fleiss Kappa   −0.001 0.105 0.04