BackgroundThis study aims to review the literature regarding the barriers to sampling, recruitment, participation, and retention of members of socioeconomically disadvantaged groups in health research and strategies for increasing the amount of health research conducted with socially disadvantaged groups.MethodsA systematic review with narrative synthesis was conducted. Searches of electronic databases Medline, PsychInfo, EMBASE, Social Science Index via Web of Knowledge and CINHAL were conducted for English language articles published up to May 2013. Qualitative and quantitative studies as well as literature reviews were included. Articles were included if they reported attempts to increase disadvantaged group participation in research, or the barriers to research with disadvantaged groups. Groups of interest were those described as socially, culturally or financially disadvantaged compared to the majority of society. Eligible articles were categorised according to five phases of research: 1) sampling, 2) recruitment and gaining consent, 3) data collection and measurement, 4) intervention delivery and uptake, and 5) retention and attrition.ResultsIn total, 116 papers from 115 studies met inclusion criteria and 31 previous literature reviews were included. A comprehensive summation of the major barriers to working with various disadvantaged groups is provided, along with proposed strategies for addressing each of the identified types of barriers. Most studies of strategies to address the barriers were of a descriptive nature and only nine studies reported the results of randomised trials.ConclusionsTo tackle the challenges of research with socially disadvantaged groups, and increase their representation in health and medical research, researchers and research institutions need to acknowledge extended timeframes, plan for higher resourcing costs and operate via community partnerships.

ObjectivesTo identify barriers that are common and unique to six selected vulnerable groups: low socioeconomic status; Indigenous; mental illness and substance abuse; homeless; prisoners; and at-risk youth.DesignA systematic review was carried out to identify the perceived barriers to smoking cessation within six vulnerable groups.Data sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycInfo were searched using keywords and MeSH terms from each database's inception published prior to March 2014.Study selectionStudies that provided either qualitative or quantitative (ie, longitudinal, cross-sectional or cohort surveys) descriptions of self-reported perceived barriers to quitting smoking in one of the six aforementioned vulnerable groups were included.Data extractionTwo authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and extracted data.Results65 eligible papers were identified: 24 with low socioeconomic groups, 16 with Indigenous groups, 18 involving people with a mental illness, 3 with homeless groups, 2 involving prisoners and 1 involving at-risk youth. One study identified was carried out with participants who were homeless and addicted to alcohol and/or other drugs. Barriers common to all vulnerable groups included: smoking for stress management, lack of support from health and other service providers, and the high prevalence and acceptability of smoking in vulnerable communities. Unique barriers were identified for people with a mental illness (eg, maintenance of mental health), Indigenous groups (eg, cultural and historical norms), prisoners (eg, living conditions), people who are homeless (eg, competing priorities) and at-risk youth (eg, high accessibility of tobacco).ConclusionsVulnerable groups experience common barriers to smoking cessation, in addition to barriers that are unique to specific vulnerable groups. Individual-level, community-level and social network-level interventions are priority areas for future smoking cessation interventions within vulnerable groups.Trial registration number:A protocol for this review has been registered with PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (Identifier: CRD42013005761).

Research priority setting aims to gain consensus about areas where research effort will have wide benefits to society. While general principles for setting health research priorities have been suggested, there has been no critical review of the different approaches used. This review aims to: (i) examine methods, models and frameworks used to set health research priorities; (ii) identify barriers and facilitators to priority setting processes; and (iii) determine the outcomes of priority setting processes in relation to their objectives and impact on policy and practice.Medline, Cochrane, and PsycINFO databases were searched for relevant peer-reviewed studies published from 1990 to March 2012. A review of grey literature was also conducted. Priority setting exercises that aimed to develop population health and health services research priorities conducted in Australia, New Zealand, North America, Europe and the UK were included. Two authors extracted data from identified studies.Eleven diverse priority setting exercises across a range of health areas were identified. Strategies including calls for submission, stakeholder surveys, questionnaires, interviews, workshops, focus groups, roundtables, the Nominal Group and Delphi technique were used to generate research priorities. Nine priority setting exercises used a core steering or advisory group to oversee and supervise the priority setting process. None of the models conducted a systematic assessment of the outcomes of the priority setting processes, or assessed the impact of the generated priorities on policy or practice. A number of barriers and facilitators to undertaking research priority setting were identified.The methods used to undertake research priority setting should be selected based upon the context of the priority setting process and time and resource constraints. Ideally, priority setting should be overseen by a multi-disciplinary advisory group, involve a broad representation of stakeholders, utilise objective and clearly defined criteria for generating priorities, and be evaluated.

Few well-controlled trials have examined the most effective smoking cessation strategies for highly disadvantaged groups, especially among the homeless, indigenous smokers and prisoners. The use of behavioural smoking cessation interventions for some socially disadvantaged groups appears promising; however, overall findings are inconsistent. Further research is needed to establish the most effective interventions for vulnerable high-risk groups. Special attention should be given to increasing sample size and power, and to sound evaluation methodology to overcome methodological limitations of conducting research with these high-risk groups.

Adherence to medication among individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is suboptimal and has negative impacts on survival and health care costs. No systematic review has examined the effectiveness of interventions designed to improve medication adherence. Electronic databases Medline and Cochrane were searched using a combination of MeSH and keywords. Eligible studies were interventions with a primary or secondary aim to improve medication adherence among individuals with COPD published in English. Included studies were assessed for methodological quality using the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) criteria. Of the 1,186 papers identified, seven studies met inclusion criteria. Methodological quality of the studies was variable. Five studies identified effective interventions. Strategies included: brief counselling; monitoring and feedback about inhaler use through electronic medication delivery devices; and multi-component interventions consisting of self-management and care co-ordination delivered by pharmacists and primary care teams. Further research is needed to establish the most effective and cost effective interventions. Special attention should be given to increasing patient sample size and using a common measure of adherence to overcome methodological limitations. Interventions that involve caregivers and target the healthcare provider as well as the patient should be further explored.

BackgroundThe reductions in smoking prevalence in a number of industrialised countries are accompanied by a strong social gap and associated health inequality. Groups such as the World Health Organisation emphasise the importance of exploring potential causal factors for smoking such as socio-economic context & position. There has been little effort to compare the social context of smoking for smokers of high versus lower socio-economic position (SEP) to consider how tobacco control efforts might reduce smoking-related health inequality.MethodPurposive sampling was used to recruit participants for eight focus groups. The groups were segregated by age, gender and SEP. Samples were selected from suburbs within the Sydney metropolitan area defined as either high or low SEP based on the Socio Economic Index for Areas. Emergent themes were analysed according to Poland's six dimensions of the social context of smoking. Differences according to SEP, age group and gender were explored.ResultsWhile there was commonality in social experiences for smokers across groups, some important aspects of the social context of smoking varied. Smokers of high SEP appeared to be aware of particular social pressures not to smoke on five of the six social context dimensions (power, body, identity, consumption and place). Not only were some of those pressures absent for low SEP participants, there were additional influences within the social context which were pro-smoking.ConclusionsIn order to narrow the health inequality gap associated with smoking, it is important to take account of the more pro-smoking social context experienced by low SEP smokers. Suggestions are made regarding social marketing campaigns, support for quit assistance and approaches to the regulation of smoking which may assist in minimising smoking-related health inequality.

This review highlights a range of barriers to dementia diagnosis and management from studies rated as being methodologically adequate. Future studies should also utilize theory-driven approaches to exploring a comprehensive range of barriers to optimal dementia care across the care trajectory.

Reaching disadvantaged groups for smoking cessation represents a significant challenge. Not-for-profit community service organizations (CSOs) represent a promising setting for the delivery of quit smoking support to disadvantaged smokers. However, their potential has not yet been explored. This qualitative study examined the acceptability of community service-delivered smoking cessation care. In-depth interviews and focus groups were conducted with 8 managers, 35 staff and 32 clients of CSOs between December 2008 and March 2009 in New South Wales, Australia. Discussions were audiotaped, transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis techniques. Quantitative surveys were also conducted to explore preferences for cessation support. Results showed that the acceptability of providing and receiving cessation support in the community service setting was high. Staff perceived the provision of quit support to be compatible with their role but reported barriers to providing care including competing priorities, insufficient resources and inadequate staff training. Brief intervention approaches were preferred by managers and staff, while financial incentives and access to free or subsidized nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) were desired by clients. The community service setting represents a promising access point for engaging disadvantaged smokers for cessation and further research exploring the effectiveness of support delivered in this setting is clearly warranted.