Dataset Information

A tool to assess alignment between knowledge and action for health equity.

ABSTRACT: Advancing health equity is a central goal and ethical imperative in public and global health. Though the commitment to health equity in these fields and among the health professions is clear, alignment between good equity intentions and action remains a challenge. This work regularly encounters the same power structures that are known to cause health inequities. Despite consensus about causes, health inequities persist-illustrating an uncomfortable paradox: good intentions and good evidence do not necessarily lead to meaningful action. This article describes a theoretically informed, reflective tool for assessing alignment between knowledge and action for health equity. It is grounded in an assumption that progressively more productive action toward health inequities is justified and desired and an explicit acceptance of the evidence about the socioeconomic, political, and power-related root causes of health inequities. Intentionally simple, the tool presents six possible actions that describe ways in which health equity work could respond to causes of health inequities: discredit, distract, disregard, acknowledge, illuminate, or disrupt. The tool can be used to assess or inform any kind of health equity work, in different settings and at different levels of intervention. It is a practical resource against which practice, policy, or research can be held to account, encouraging steps toward equity- and evidence-informed action. It is meant to complement other tools and training resources to build capacity for allyship, de- colonization, and cultural safety in the field of health equity, ultimately contributing to growing awareness of how to advance meaningful health equity action.

SUBMITTER: Plamondon KM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7017559 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A tool to assess alignment between knowledge and action for health equity.

Plamondon Katrina Marie KM

BMC public health 20200212 1

Advancing health equity is a central goal and ethical imperative in public and global health. Though the commitment to health equity in these fields and among the health professions is clear, alignment between good equity intentions and action remains a challenge. This work regularly encounters the same power structures that are known to cause health inequities. Despite consensus about causes, health inequities persist-illustrating an uncomfortable paradox: good intentions and good evidence do n ...[more]

PMID: 32050946

Similar Datasets

Project description:A focus on equity in health can be seen in many global development goals and reports, research and international declarations. With the development of a relevant framework and methods, the Campbell and Cochrane Equity Methods Group has encouraged the application of an 'equity lens' to systematic reviews, and many organizations publish reviews intended to address health equity. The purpose of the Evidence for Equity (E4E) project was to conduct a priority-setting exercise and apply an equity lens by developing a knowledge translation product comprising summaries of systematic reviews from the Cochrane Library. E4E translates evidence from systematic reviews into 'friendly front end' summaries for policy makers.The following topic areas with high burdens of disease globally, were selected for the pilot: diabetes/obesity, HIV/AIDS, malaria, nutrition, and mental health/depression. For each topic area, a "stakeholder panel" was assembled that included policymakers and researchers. A systematic search of Cochrane reviews was conducted for each area to identify equity-relevant interventions with a meaningful impact. Panel chairs developed a rating sheet which was used by all panels to rank the importance of these interventions by: 1) Ease of Implementation; 2) Health System Requirements; 3)Universality/Generalizability/Share of Burden; and 4) Impact on Inequities/Effect on equity. The ratings of panel members were averaged for each intervention and criterion, and interventions were ordered according to the average overall ratings.Stakeholder panels identified the top 10 interventions from their respective topic areas. The evidence on these interventions is being summarized with an equity focus and the results posted online, at http://methods.cochrane.org/equity/e4e-series .This method provides an explicit approach to setting priorities by systematic review groups and funders for providing decision makers with evidence for the most important equity-relevant interventions.

Project description:ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to develop a measurement tool to capture local public health department (LHD) organizational characteristics that align with implementation of equity-oriented practice, which may be used to gauge progress in building public health structures and functions that address the needs of vulnerable populations and reduce health inequities.MethodsWe developed and tested a measurement tool, with practitioner input, based on an implementation science framework and informed by previous work defining public health essential services and practice recommendations for health equity. Measures assessed types of vulnerable populations served by the LHD, organizational climate, and four equity-oriented practice areas, including: assessment and planning, monitoring and analysis, leadership support, and obesity prevention. We also assessed opportunities for capacity building by identifying training needs of practitioners. Primary data were collected from Missouri local health department practitioners (n = 92, 80% response rate) via an online questionnaire, with a subset of the sample providing data for test-retest reliability.ResultsMeasures of equity-oriented implementation climate indicated areas of variability with respect to strengths and gaps across LHDs. While implementation climate was strong with respect to perceived importance (86%), a substantial proportion of LHDs cited concern over other priorities conflicting with equity-oriented implementation (32%). Likewise, a strong internal push (67%) was often accompanied by limited external political (25%) and community support (40%). Implementation climate measures generally had good to excellent reliability and were significantly associated with areas of equity-oriented practice. Frequently identified (>70%) training needs included improving skills in applying frameworks, assessment methods, and evaluating collaborations around equity.ConclusionWe developed a theory-based, practitioner-informed questionnaire to assess capacity for equity-oriented practice and identify opportunities for capacity building in local public health departments to engage in effective change toward health equity.

Project description:Current methods to evaluate a journal's impact rely on the downstream citation mapping used to generate the Impact Factor. This approach is a fragile metric prone to being skewed by outlier values and does not speak to a researcher's contribution to furthering health outcomes for all populations. Therefore, we propose the implementation of a Diversity Factor to fulfill this need and supplement the current metrics. It is composed of four key elements: dataset properties, author country, author gender and departmental affiliation. Due to the significance of each individual element, they should be assessed independently of each other as opposed to being combined into a simplified score to be optimized. Herein, we discuss the necessity of such metrics, provide a framework to build upon, evaluate the current landscape through the lens of each key element and publish the findings on a freely available website that enables further evaluation. The OpenAlex database was used to extract the metadata of all papers published from 2000 until August 2022, and Natural language processing was used to identify individual elements. Features were then displayed individually on a static dashboard developed using TableauPublic, which is available at www.equitablescience.com. In total, 130,721 papers were identified from 7,462 journals where significant underrepresentation of LMIC and Female authors was demonstrated. These findings are pervasive and show no positive correlation with the Journal's Impact Factor. The systematic collection of the Diversity Factor concept would allow for more detailed analysis, highlight gaps in knowledge, and reflect confidence in the translation of related research. Conversion of this metric to an active pipeline would account for the fact that how we define those most at risk will change over time and quantify responses to particular initiatives. Therefore, continuous measurement of outcomes across groups and those investigating those outcomes will never lose importance. Moving forward, we encourage further revision and improvement by diverse author groups in order to better refine this concept.

Dataset Information

A tool to assess alignment between knowledge and action for health equity.

Publications

A tool to assess alignment between knowledge and action for health equity.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets