Table 1.

Examples of equity considerations in the process of rapid evidence synthesis

Steps to consider equity	Rationale	Example(s)
Stakeholder engagement	In the spirit of equity, inclusion and diversity, the research team should consider including representatives of populations that experience inequities and diverse experiences.	In a rapid review on the change in level of vaccine protection over time in COVID-19 vaccinated, there is selected information incorporated into the review provided by patient/citizen partners (2 people) with lived experience on the subject matter [33].
Question formulation	Identifying the priority population, defining where the inequity lies and the choosing the appropriate study designs to answer the question is important for evaluating impacts on health equity.	In the introduction: “As vaccines became available, large proportions of populations over age 12 have been vaccinated and some public health measures have been relaxed, leaving those under age 12 vulnerable to infection and severe illness” [34]. In the eligibility criteria, Guidelines and synthesis were prioritized as they generally take into account the available body evidence and could be applied broadly to subpopulations [34].
Identification of evidence	Evidence relating to populations experiencing health inequities draws not only on health, but social, cultural, and political factors. Thus, authors should consider a wide range of literature when searching for relevant studies.	“A gray literature search was also conducted, including: MedRxiv, Google, McMaster Health Forum (CoVID-END), and websites of international government organizations (e.g., Center for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], World Health Organization [WHO])” [35]. A review evaluating risk factors for children searched for the population of interest in all possible fields (title, abstract, subject heading, etc.) [34].
Data collection and appraisal of evidence	Contextual factors and study process may influence outcomes as they relate to health equity, so authors should consider such factors and that could help interpret the findings of the study.	“A review assessing the mortality and length of stay outcomes with the use of tele-medicine-supported critical care medicine compared to traditional bedside critical care found that the degree of impact of tele-ICU adoption is linked to location (urban vs. rural) among other factors” [36]. Crawshaw al conducted a qualitative rapid review for aimed at assessing the level of vaccine acceptance in racialized populations. They evaluated the participants included in the qualitative primary studies to verify that the findings of the review apply [37].
Evidence synthesis	To assess the impact of health equity on outcomes, the authors should not only provide average results, but should report differences in effects across populations of interest.	“Unknown length of surgical delay highest source of anxiety - male were more likely to proceed in spite of COVID-19 risk, Only 7% stated that they would continue to delay due to fear of contracting COVID-19 in hospital” [38].
Interpretation of findings	Focusing on interpreting the evidence available for the previously identified priority populations as not all evidence is applicable to all groups of the population.	“Across studies exploring perceptions of different vaccines, safety was a primary concern both as a motivator for seeking vaccination (i.e., to protect oneself and others from illness) and as a reason to not seek vaccination (i.e., potential side effects) [for First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples in Canada and Indigenous Peoples globally]. The confidence in this finding is low (GRADE-CERQual) however, it is possible that this finding is a reasonable representation of the phenomenon of interest” [39].