Recommendations for improving national clinical datasets for health equity research.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Block RG
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7671626 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveTo describe health equity research priorities for health care delivery systems and delineate a research and action agenda that generates evidence-based solutions to persistent racial and ethnic inequities in health outcomes.Data sources and study settingThis project was conducted as a component of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's (AHRQ) stakeholder engaged process to develop an Equity Agenda and Action Plan to guide priority setting to advance health equity. Recommendations were developed and refined based on expert input, evidence review, and stakeholder engagement. Participating stakeholders included experts from academia, health care organizations, industry, and government.Study designExpert group consensus, informed by stakeholder engagement and targeted evidence review.Data collection/extraction methodsPriority themes were derived iteratively through (1) brainstorming and idea reduction, (2) targeted evidence review of candidate themes, (3) determination of preliminary themes; (4) input on preliminary themes from stakeholders attending AHRQ's 2022 Health Equity Summit; and (5) and refinement of themes based on that input. The final set of research and action recommendations was determined by authors' consensus.Principal findingsHealth care delivery systems have contributed to racial and ethnic disparities in health care. High quality research is needed to inform health care delivery systems approaches to undo systemic barriers and inequities. We identified six priority themes for research; (1) institutional leadership, culture, and workforce; (2) data-driven, culturally tailored care; (3) health equity targeted performance incentives; (4) health equity-informed approaches to health system consolidation and access; (5) whole person care; (6) and whole community investment. We also suggest cross-cutting themes regarding research workforce and research timelines.ConclusionsAs the nation's primary health services research agency, AHRQ can advance equitable delivery of health care by funding research and disseminating evidence to help transform the organization and delivery of health care.
| S-EPMC10684038 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAvoidable disparities in health outcomes persist in Canada despite substantial investments in a publicly funded health care system that includes preventive services. Our objective was to provide preventive care recommendations that promote health equity by prioritizing effective interventions for people experiencing disadvantages.MethodsThe guideline was developed by a primary care provider-patient panel, with input from a patient-partner panel with diverse lived experiences. After selecting priority topics, we searched for systematic reviews and recent randomized controlled trials of screening and other relevant studies of screening accuracy and management efficacy. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to develop recommendations and followed the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) reporting guidance. We managed competing interests using the Guideline International Network principles. The recommendations were externally reviewed by content experts and circulated for endorsement by national stakeholders.RecommendationsWe developed 15 screening and other preventive care recommendations and 1 policy recommendation on improving access to primary care. We recommend prioritized outreach for colorectal cancer screening starting at age 45 years and for cardiovascular disease risk assessment, to help address inequities and promote health. Specific interventions that should be rolled out in ways that address inequities include human papillomavirus (HPV) self-testing, HIV self-testing and interferon-γ release assays for tuberculosis infection. Screening for depression, substance use, intimate partner violence and poverty should help connect people experiencing specific disadvantages with proven interventions. We recommend automatic connection to primary care for people experiencing disadvantages.InterpretationProven preventive care interventions can address health inequities if people experiencing disadvantages are prioritized. Clinicians, health care organizations and governments should take evidence-based actions and track progress in promoting health equity across Canada.
| S-EPMC10519166 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the global imperative to address health inequities. Observational studies are a valuable source of evidence for real-world effects and impacts of implementing COVID-19 policies on the redistribution of inequities. We assembled a diverse global multi-disciplinary team to develop interim guidance for improving transparency in reporting health equity in COVID-19 observational studies. We identified 14 areas in the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) checklist that need additional detail to encourage transparent reporting of health equity. We searched for examples of COVID-19 observational studies that analysed and reported health equity analysis across one or more social determinants of health. We engaged with Indigenous stakeholders and others groups experiencing health inequities to co-produce this guidance and to bring an intersectional lens. Taking health equity and social determinants of health into account contributes to the clinical and epidemiological understanding of the disease, identifying specific needs and supporting decision-making processes. Stakeholders are encouraged to consider using this guidance on observational research to help provide evidence to close the inequitable gaps in health outcomes.
| S-EPMC8431098 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the role of nurse scientists in -omics-based research and to promote discussion around the conduct of -omics-based nursing research in minority communities. Nurses are advocates, educators, practitioners, scientists, and researchers, and are crucial to the design and successful implementation of -omics studies, particularly including minority communities. The contribution of nursing in this area of research is crucial to reducing health disparities.In this article, challenges in the conduct of -omics-based research in minority communities are discussed, and recommendations for improving diversity among nurse scientists, study participants, and utilization of training and continuing education programs in -omics are provided.Many opportunities exist for nurses to increase their knowledge in -omics and to continue to build the ranks of nurse scientists as leaders in -omics-based research. In order to work successfully with communities of color, nurse scientists must advocate for participation in the Precision Medicine Initiative, improve representation of nurse faculty of color, and increase utilization of training programs in -omics and lead such initiatives.All nursing care has the potential to be affected by the era of -omics and precision health. By taking an inclusive approach to diversity in nursing and -omics research, nurses will be well placed to be leaders in reducing health disparities through research, practice, and education.
| S-EPMC5935491 | biostudies-other
Project description:Human health is inextricably linked to the health of animals and the viability of ecosystems; this is a concept commonly known as One Health. Over the last 2 decades, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and the National Research Council (NRC) have published consensus reports and workshop summaries addressing a variety of threats to animal, human, and ecosystem health. We reviewed a selection of these publications and identified recommendations from NRC and IOM/NRC consensus reports and from opinions expressed in workshop summaries that are relevant to implementation of the One Health paradigm shift. We grouped these recommendations and opinions into thematic categories to determine if sufficient attention has been given to various aspects of One Health. We conclude that although One Health themes have been included throughout numerous IOM and NRC publications, identified gaps remain that may warrant targeted studies related to the One Health approach.
| S-EPMC3840875 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:The Johns Hopkins Center for Population Health IT hosted a 1-day symposium sponsored by the National Library of Medicine to help develop a national research and development (R&D) agenda for the emerging field of population health informatics (PopHI). MATERIAL AND METHODS:The symposium provided a venue for national experts to brainstorm, identify, discuss, and prioritize the top challenges and opportunities in the PopHI field, as well as R&D areas to address these. RESULTS:This manuscript summarizes the findings of the PopHI symposium. The symposium participants' recommendations have been categorized into 13 overarching themes, including policy alignment, data governance, sustainability and incentives, and standards/interoperability. DISCUSSION:The proposed consensus-based national agenda for PopHI consisted of 18 priority recommendations grouped into 4 broad goals: (1) Developing a standardized collaborative framework and infrastructure, (2) Advancing technical tools and methods, (3) Developing a scientific evidence and knowledge base, and (4) Developing an appropriate framework for policy, privacy, and sustainability. There was a substantial amount of agreement between all the participants on the challenges and opportunities for PopHI as well as on the actions that needed to be taken to address these. CONCLUSION:PopHI is a rapidly growing field that has emerged to address the population dimension of the Triple Aim. The proposed PopHI R&D agenda is comprehensive and timely, but should be considered only a starting-point, given that ongoing developments in health policy, population health management, and informatics are very dynamic, suggesting that the agenda will require constant monitoring and updating.
| S-EPMC5201177 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has had a devastating impact on multiple aspects of healthcare, but has also triggered new ways of working, stimulated novel approaches in clinical research and reinforced the value of previous innovations. Conect4children (c4c, www.conect4children.org ) is a large collaborative European network to facilitate the development of new medicines for paediatric populations, and is made up of 35 academic and 10 industry partners from 20 European countries, more than 50 third parties, and around 500 affiliated partners.MethodsWe summarise aspects of clinical research in paediatrics stimulated and reinforced by COVID-19 that the Conect4children group recommends regulators, sponsors, and investigators retain for the future, to enhance the efficiency, reduce the cost and burden of medicines and non-interventional studies, and deliver research-equity.FindingsWe summarise aspects of clinical research in paediatrics stimulated and reinforced by COVID-19 that the Conect4children group recommends regulators, sponsors, and investigators retain for the future, to enhance the efficiency, reduce the cost and burden of medicines and non-interventional studies, and deliver research-equityWe provide examples of research innovation, and follow this with recommendations to improve the efficiency of future trials, drawing on industry perspectives, regulatory considerations, infrastructure requirements and parent-patient-public involvement. We end with a comment on progress made towards greater international harmonisation of paediatric research and how lessons learned from COVID-19 studies might assist in further improvements in this important area.
| S-EPMC8184051 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Academic research plays a key role in identifying new drug targets, including understanding target biology and links between targets and disease states. To lead to new drugs, however, research must progress from purely academic exploration to the initiation of efforts to identify and test a drug candidate in clinical trials, which are typically conducted by the biopharma industry. This transition can be facilitated by a timely focus on target assessment aspects such as target-related safety issues, druggability and assayability, as well as the potential for target modulation to achieve differentiation from established therapies. Here, we present recommendations from the GOT-IT working group, which have been designed to support academic scientists and funders of translational research in identifying and prioritizing target assessment activities and in defining a critical path to reach scientific goals as well as goals related to licensing, partnering with industry or initiating clinical development programmes. Based on sets of guiding questions for different areas of target assessment, the GOT-IT framework is intended to stimulate academic scientists' awareness of factors that make translational research more robust and efficient, and to facilitate academia-industry collaboration.
| S-EPMC7667479 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Database URL:https://biocaddie.org/benchmark-data.
| S-EPMC5714153 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Links among agriculture, nutrition, and health (ANH) are established, but the role of inequity is less understood. In this scoping review, we aimed to understand the range of ways that ANH research addresses inequity issues in low- and middle-income countries. We used PRISMA guidelines to structure our study. From an initial >26 000 studies, 243 published reports met inclusion criteria and were mapped. The number of reports addressing inequity in ANH research has increased over time from < 10 articles in 2008 to > 40 in 2018. Within equity, a majority of articles (n = 327) focused on describing how nutrition and health outcomes differ for different groups. Many (n = 134) looked at the material circumstances that shape people's life chances. Fewer (n = 51) looked at the most basic structural determinants of (in)equity. The same aspects of equity remain the least studied in ANH research, including the intersections of equity issues shaping life chances, and inequity's structural determinants. We suggest ways forward for this community, drawing on conceptual frameworks and theory of inequity from different disciplines.
| S-EPMC8664535 | biostudies-literature