Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40104249›Full record

ArticlePublic health in practice (Oxford, England)2025

EQUALSS GUIDE Multiple: A novel framework for equity-focused evidence synthesis.

Lucy McCann, Lucy Johnson, Anna Gkiouleka, Helen Pearce, John Ford

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Public health in practice (Oxford, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Lucy McCannWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Lucy JohnsonWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Anna GkioulekaWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Helen PearceWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
John FordWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Understanding the differential effects of health and care interventions across disadvantaged groups is essential in addressing inequalities and avoiding inadvertently worsening them. Previous research has highlighted limitations with the existing PROGRESS-Plus framework. We aimed to develop a framework to allow researchers to synthesise evidence with an equity perspective. Methods: First, we re-analysed articles from the EQUALISE study, a review of interventions that increase or decrease inequalities in general practice, to explore the various domains of disadvantage examined in the included studies. We then compared these domains of disadvantage with the existing PROGRESS-Plus framework. Finally, we propose a new framework to support equity-focused evidence synthesis. Findings: From the 325 studies included in EQUALISE, the most commonly assessed PROGRESS-Plus domains were sex/gender (53%), ethnicity/race (50%), and age (44%). The PROGRESS-Plus framework did not include explict mention of context-specific groups, those with multiple intersecting disadvantage, and people who experience disability. Building on PROGRESS-Plus, our new framework EQUALSS GUIDE Multiple includes: Ethnicity and race, Qualifications and education, Underserved area, Age, Language and religion, Sex, Sexual orientation, Gender identification, Underrepresented groups (inclusion groups), Income and wealth, Disability (physical, mental and learning), Employment and occupation, and Multiple disadvantage. Interpretation: EQUALSS GUIDE Multiple builds on PROGRESS-Plus to encapsulate key domains of disadvantage while allowing for context-specific flexibility. Examining the effectiveness of policy and practice interventions by disadvantaged groups is paramount to prioritise actions that narrow the health gap and prevent actions which widen inequalities.

Identifiers

PMID40104249
PMCPMC11919437

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.