Dataset Information

Critical Consciousness as a Framework for Health Equity-Focused Peer Learning.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Recognizing the need to teach concepts of health equity, diversity, and inclusion as a part of medical students' preclinical training, we developed a series of workshops in the first year of medical school that introduced students to issues of discrimination and inequity and their effects on health outcomes. This student-led, faculty-supported project, known as Critical Consciousness in Medicine (CCM), adopted critical consciousness as a guiding principle for student learning.

Methods

Over the course of the 2018-2019 academic year, student leaders developed and delivered five 2-hour workshops to 197 first-year students, with the assistance of student facilitators and input and guidance from faculty advisors. Workshops involved a mix of whole-class presentations and small-group discussions. Session topics included identity and interpersonal relationships, privilege, health disparities, and implicit bias.

Results

Paired t-test analysis showed statistically significant growth in student self-ratings related to CCM learning objectives as measured in the end-of-year pre-/postsurvey. Student comments in year-end reflections further suggested learning, self-assessment, growth, and appreciation for the workshops' place in the preclinical curriculum.

Discussion

This project modeled a student-faculty partnership for approaching diversity, inclusion, and health equity in medical education and highlighted the role of students as leaders in educating their peers. The CCM workshop series demonstrated high acceptability as a component of preclinical medical education and may increase student engagement around social issues in health care. CCM also illustrated the promise of using critical consciousness as an approach to educating medical students about equity, diversity, and inclusion.

SUBMITTER: Ellison J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8079426 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHealth intervention implementation in Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ), as in many countries globally, usually varies by ethnicity. Māori (the Indigenous peoples of Aotearoa) and Pacific peoples are less likely to receive interventions than other ethnic groups, despite experiencing persistent health inequities. This study aimed to develop an equity-focused implementation framework, appropriate for the Aotearoa NZ context, to support the planning and delivery of equitable implementation pathways for health interventions, with the intention of achieving equitable outcomes for Māori, as well as people originating from the Pacific Islands.MethodsA scoping review of the literature to identify existing equity-focused implementation theories, models and frameworks was undertaken. One of these, the Equity-based framework for Implementation Research (EquIR), was selected for adaptation. The adaptation process was undertaken in collaboration with the project's Māori and consumer advisory groups and informed by the expertise of local health equity researchers and stakeholders, as well as the international implementation science literature.ResultsThe adapted framework's foundation is the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi (the written agreement between Māori rangatira (chiefs) and the British Crown), and its focus is whānau (extended family)-centred implementation that meets the health and wellbeing aspirations, priorities and needs of whānau. The implementation pathway comprises four main steps: implementation planning, pathway design, monitoring, and outcomes and evaluation, all with an equity focus. The pathway is underpinned by the core constructs of equitable implementation in Aotearoa NZ: collaborative design, anti-racism, Māori and priority population expertise, cultural safety and values-based. Additionally, the contextual factors impacting implementation, i.e. the social, economic, commercial and political determinants of health, are included.ConclusionsThe framework presented in this study is the first equity-focused process-type implementation framework to be adapted for the Aotearoa NZ context. This framework is intended to support and facilitate equity-focused implementation research and health intervention implementation by mainstream health services.

Project description:BackgroundDespite the wealth of frameworks on social determinants of health (SDOH), two current limitations include the relative superficial description of factors affecting health and a lack of focus on measuring health equity. The Health Equity Measurement Framework (HEMF) addresses these gaps by providing a more encompassing view of the multitude of SDOH and drivers of health service utilisation and by guiding quantitative analysis for public health surveillance and policy development. The objective of this paper is to present the HEMF, which was specifically designed to measure the direct and indirect effects of SDOH to support improved statistical modelling and measurement of health equity.MethodsBased on a framework synthesis, the HEMF development involved initially integrating theoretical components from existing SDOH and health system utilisation frameworks. To further develop the framework, relevant publications on SDOH and health equity were identified through a literature review in major electronic databases. White and grey literatures were critically reviewed to identify strengths and gaps in the existing frameworks in order to inform the development of a unique health equity measurement framework. Finally, over a two-year period of consultation, scholars, health practitioners, and local policy influencers from municipal and provincial governments provided critical feedback on the framework regarding its components and causal relationships.ResultsThis unified framework includes the socioeconomic, cultural, and political context, health policy context, social stratification, social location, material and social circumstances, environment, biological factors, health-related behaviours and beliefs, stress, quality of care, and healthcare utilisation. Alongside the HEMF's self-exploratory diagram showing the causal pathways in-depth, a number of examples are provided to illustrate the framework's usefulness in measuring and monitoring health equity as well as informing policy-making.ConclusionsThe HEMF highlights intervention areas to be influenced by strategic public policy for any organisation whose purview has an effect on health, including helping non-health sectors (such as education and labour) to better understand how their policies influence population health and perceive their role in health equity promotion. The HEMF recognises the complexity surrounding the SDOH and provides a clear, overarching direction for empirical work on health equity.

Project description:Urban infrastructure systems responsible for the provision of energy, transportation, shelter, and communication to populations are important determinants of health and health equity. The term "smart city" has been used synonymously with other terms, such as "digital city", "sustainable city", and "information city", even though definitional distinctions exist between terms. In this review, we use "smart cities" as a catch-all term to refer to an emerging concept in urban governance practice and scholarship that has been increasingly applied to achieve public health aims. The objective of this systematic review was to document and analyze the inclusion of equity considerations and dimensions (i.e., a measurement, analytical, or dialectical focus on systematic disparities in health between groups) in smart city interventions aimed to improve human health and well-being. Systematic searches were carried out in the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Psychological Information Database (PsycINFO), the PubMed database from the National Center for Biotechnology Information, Elsevier's database Scopus, and Web of Science, returning 3219 titles. Ultimately, 28 articles were retained, assessed, and coded for their inclusion of equity characteristics using the Cochrane PROGRESS-Plus tool (referring to (P) place of residence, (R) race, (O) occupation, (G) gender, (R) religion, (E) education, (S) socio-economic status (SES), and (S) social capital). The most frequently included equity considerations in smart city health interventions were place of residence, SES, social capital, and personal characteristics; conversely, occupation, gender or sex, religion, race, ethnicity, culture, language, and education characteristics were comparatively less featured in such interventions. Overall, it appears that most of intervention evaluations assessed in this review are still in the early testing phases, and thus did not include or feature robust evaluative designs or commercially available technologies.