[Futuregen] Examples for the possible proof of concept piece on care

[ilinca at euro.centre.org]

Dear all,

I'm writing to bring to your attention a new online platform created to 
support systematic reviews carried our by international teams in various 
locations.
It's called Covidence (https://www.covidence.org).
I came to it through another project I am involved with, where it has 
been used successfully to carry out the first screening phases of a 
large scale systematic review and I have just created an account. It is 
free and looks extremely helpful and well structured (at first sight).

I think this can be a very useful tool for us as well, as we embark on 
the two reviews and can help us support each other in an efficient 
manner, without duplicating tasks.

Maybe you were aware of it already and discarded it for some reason - 
again, it's new to me too so I can't vouch for it but it comes highly 
recommended by a team with plenty of review experience.

I hope this can be of use.

Best, Stefania



On 2019-08-13 15:50, Ricardo Rodrigues wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
> 
> Ahead of our zoom tomorrow at 14h00 CET, we are sending you all a
> short example of what we had in mind regarding a possible proof of
> concept exercise for care on the methods to capture intersectionality
> between income and gender.
> 
> The example is actually best exemplified by the paper we attach
> (unfortunately they apply different methodologies to diffeent
> examples): depending on the method used, could we expect to have
> different results in terms of gender inequalities and what does this
> tell us about the best method to analyze these in care (one of the
> aims of WP3/FUTUREGEN)?
> 
> Effect modification (i.e. running regressions separately for men and
> women) is akin to testing if effects of income are different for men
> and women. Interactions basically tell us whether the gender effect
> changes across a 2nd variable (e.g. income), and gives us the combine
> effect of gender and income. Mediation provides the direct of gender
> on care and indirect effect of gender on care through income (e.g.
> this approach for example allows us to test whether there is a gender
> effect at all after including the mediator).
> 
> The purpose is to inform researchers and policy makers on the dangers
> of interpreting results that do not accurately reflect the real
> dynamics between predictors and proposing a gold-standard for
> analyses.
> 
> Was our thinking a bit clearer after this...? We can discuss it
> further tomorrow.
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Ricardo
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Futuregen mailing list
> Futuregen at euro.centre.org
> https://lists.euro.centre.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/futuregen