Reducing health inequalities through general practice: protocol for a realist review (EQUALISE).
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Introduction
Healthcare organisations recognise the moral imperative to address inequalities in health outcomes but often lack an understanding of which types of interventions are likely to reduce them. This realist review will examine the existing evidence on the types of interventions or aspects of routine care in general practice that are likely to decrease or increase health inequalities (ie, inequality-generating interventions) across cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.Methods and analysis
Our realist review will follow Pawson's five iterative stages. We will start by developing an initial programme theory based on existing theories and discussions with stakeholders. To navigate the large volume of literature, we will access the primary studies through the identification of published systematic reviews of interventions delivered in general practice across the four key conditions. We will examine the primary studies included within each systematic review to identify those reporting on inequalities across PROGRESS-Plus categories. We will collect data on a range of clinical outcomes including prevention, diagnosis, follow-up and treatment. The data will be synthesised using a realist logic of analysis. The findings will be a description and explanation of the general practice interventions which are likely to increase or decrease inequalities across the major conditions.Ethics and dissemination
Ethics approval is not required because this study does not include any primary research. The findings will be integrated into a series of guiding principles and a toolkit for healthcare organisations to reduce health inequalities. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and user-friendly summaries.Prospero registration number
CRD42020217871.
SUBMITTER: Ford JA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8208022 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionOlder people who live in care homes have a high level of need with complex health conditions. In addition to providing medical care to residents, general practitioners (GPs) play a role as gatekeeper for access to services, as well as leadership within healthcare provision. This review will describe how GPs were involved in initiatives to change arrangements of healthcare services in order to improve quality and experience of care.Methods and analysisFollowing RAMESES quality and publication guidelines standards, we will proceed with realist review to develop theories of how GPs work with care home staff to bring about improvements. We identify when improvement in outcomes does not occur and why this may be the case. The first stage will include interviews with GPs to ask their views on improvement in care homes. These interviews will enable development of initial theories and give direction for the literature searches. In the second stage, we will use iterative literature searches to add depth and context to the early theories; databases will include Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and ASSIA. In stage 3, evidence that is judged as rigorous and relevant will be used to test the initial theories, and through the process, refine the theory statements. In the final stage, we will synthesise findings and provide recommendations for practice and policy-making.During the review, we will invite a context expert group to reflect on our findings. This group will have expertise in current trends in primary care and the care home sector both in UK and internationally.Ethics and disseminationThe study was approved by University of Nottingham Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences Research Ethics Committee: 354-1907. Findings will be shared through stakeholder networks, published in National Institute for Health Research journal and submitted for peer-reviewed journal publication.
| S-EPMC7299033 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionCommunities of practice are used for knowledge sharing and learning in health settings. However, more needs to be known to understand how they work, if they work different in different settings and what outcomes they might generate. Of particular interest is their potential role in health literacy development.Methods and analysisThis realist review will be undertaken in seven stages, aiming to develop a framework to show how the various contexts of communities of practice in health settings trigger mechanisms that lead to improved health literacy outcomes. The first stage of a realist review is considered important as it clarifies the scope of the review, yet it is rarely elaborated in detail. This paper describes this first stage in detail and shows how scoping techniques can support drafting an initial framework which can guide the rest of the review. After the initial scoping review, the subsequent stages follow an iterative and recurring process (until saturation is reached) that includes searching and appraising evidence, extracting and organising results, and analysing and summarising. The review will then generate conclusions and recommendations for stakeholders seeking to use communities of practice for their health literacy challenges. Findings of the scoping review are presented in this paper as part of the methods description to show the relevance of conducting a scoping review prior to a realist review.Ethics and disseminationEthical review is not required for this review. Experts and stakeholders will be involved in the process after the first stage to increase the quality of the process and to ensure practical relevance and uptake. This review focuses on communities of practice and health literacy, yet findings will likely be relevant for other health settings. Findings will be disseminated through stakeholders, publications, presentations and formal and informal reports.
| S-EPMC8365824 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionIn western countries, early visiting services (EVS) have been proposed as a recent intervention to reduce both general practitioner workload and hospital admissions among housebound individuals experiencing a healthcare need within the community. EVS involves the delegation of the patient home visits to other staff groups such as paramedics or nursing staff. However, the principles of organising this care are unknown and it remains unclear how different contexts, such as patient conditions and the processes of organising EVS influence care outcomes. A review has been designed to understand how EVS are enacted and, specifically, who benefits, why, how and when in order to provide further insight into the design and delivery of EVS.Methods and analysisThe purpose of this review is to produce findings that provide explanations of how and why EVS contexts influence their associated outcomes. Evidence on EVS will be consolidated through realist review-a theory-driven approach to evidence synthesis. A realist approach is needed as EVS is a complex intervention. What EVS achieve is likely to vary for different individuals and contexts. We expect to synthesise a range of relevant data such as qualitative, quantitative and mixed-method research in the following stages: devising an initial programme theory, searching evidence, selecting appropriate documents, extracting data, synthesising and refining the programme theory.Ethics and disseminationA formal ethics review is not required as this study is secondary research. Findings will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal, at national and international conferences and to relevant professional associations.Prospero registration numberCRD42018096518.
| S-EPMC6252761 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Socioeconomic inequalities in obesity and associated risk factors for obesity are widening throughout developed countries worldwide. Tackling obesity is high on the public health agenda both in the United Kingdom and internationally. However, what works in terms of interventions that are able to reduce inequalities in obesity is lacking.The review will examine public health interventions at the individual, community and societal level that might reduce inequalities in obesity among adults aged 18 years and over, in any setting and in any country. The following electronic databases will be searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Social Science Citation Index, ASSIA, IBSS, Sociological Abstracts, and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database. Database searches will be supplemented with website and gray literature searches. No studies will be excluded based on language, country or publication date. Randomized and non-randomized controlled trials, prospective and retrospective cohort studies (with/without control groups) and prospective repeat cross-sectional studies (with/without control groups) that have a primary outcome that is a proxy for body fatness and have examined differential effects with regard to socioeconomic status (education, income, occupation, social class, deprivation, poverty) or where the intervention has been targeted specifically at disadvantaged groups or deprived areas will be included. Study inclusion, data extraction and quality appraisal will be conducted by two reviewers. Meta-analysis and narrative synthesis will be conducted. The main analysis will examine the effects of 1) individual, 2) community and 3) societal level public health interventions on socioeconomic inequalities in adult obesity. Interventions will be characterized by their level of action and their approach to tackling inequalities. Contextual information on how such public health interventions are organized, implemented and delivered will also be examined.The review will provide evidence, and reveal any gaps in the evidence base, of public health strategies which reduce and prevent inequalities in the prevalence of obesity in adults and provide information on the organization, implementation and delivery of such interventions.PROSPERO registration number: CRD42013003612.
| S-EPMC3667007 | biostudies-other
Project description:IntroductionThe NHS Health Check aims to identify individuals at increased risk of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) among the adult population in England. The Health Check includes calculation of CVD risk and discussion of pharmacological and lifestyle approaches to manage risk, including referral to lifestyle support services. The programme is commissioned by Local Authorities (LAs) and is delivered by a range of different providers in different settings. There is significant variation in activity, with uptake ranging from 25% to 85% in different areas, and clear evidence of variation in implementation and delivery practice.Methods and analysisWe aim to understand how the NHS Health Check programme works in different settings, for different groups, so that we can recommend improvements to maximise intended outcomes. To do so, we will undertake a realist review and a survey of LA public health teams. Our review will follow Pawson's five iterative stages: (1) locate existing theories, (2) search for evidence, (3) article selection, (4) extract and organise data and (5) synthesise evidence and draw conclusions. Our review will include documents describing local implementation alongside published research studies. We will recruit a stakeholder group (including Public Health England, commissioners and providers of Health Checks, plus members of the public and patients) to advise us throughout. Our survey will be sent to all 152 LAs in England to gather detailed information on programme delivery (including COVID-19-related changes) and available referral services. This will enable us to map delivery across England and relate these data to programme outcomes.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required for this review. For the survey, we have received approval from the University of Kent Research Ethics Committee. Our findings will be used to develop recommendations on tailoring, implementation and design strategies to improve delivery of the NHS Health Check in different settings, for different groups.Prospero registration numberCRD42020163822.
| S-EPMC8054100 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is growing evidence of the impact of overweight and obesity on short- and long-term functioning, health and well-being. Internationally, childhood obesity rates continue to rise in some countries (for example, Mexico, India, China and Canada), although there is emerging evidence of a slowing of this increase or a plateauing in some age groups. In most European countries, the United States and Australia, however, socioeconomic inequalities in relation to obesity and risk factors for obesity are widening. Addressing inequalities in obesity, therefore, has a very high profile on the public health and health services agendas. However, there is a lack of accessible policy-ready evidence on what works in terms of interventions to reduce inequalities in obesity.Methods and designThis article describes the protocol for a National Health Service Trust (NHS) National Institute for Health Research-funded systematic review of public health interventions at the individual, community and societal levels which might reduce socioeconomic inequalities in relation to obesity amongst children ages 0 to 18 years. The studies will be selected only if (1) they included a primary outcome that is a proxy for body fatness and (2) examined differential effects with regard to socioeconomic status (education, income, occupation, social class, deprivation and poverty) or the intervention was targeted specifically at disadvantaged groups (for example, children of the unemployed, lone parents, low income and so on) or at people who live in deprived areas. A rigorous and inclusive international literature search will be conducted for randomised and nonrandomised controlled trials, prospective and retrospective cohort studies (with and/or without control groups) and prospective repeat cross-sectional studies (with and/or without control groups). The following electronic databases will be searched: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Social Science Citation Index, ASSIA, IBSS, Sociological Abstracts and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database. Database searches will be supplemented with website and grey literature searches. No studies will be excluded on the basis of language, country of origin or publication date. Study inclusion, data extraction and quality appraisal will be conducted by two reviewers. Meta-analysis and narrative synthesis will be conducted. The main analysis will examine the effects of (1) individual, (2) community and (3) societal level public health interventions on socioeconomic inequalities in childhood obesity. Interventions will be characterised by their level of action and their approach to tackling inequalities. Contextual information on how such public health interventions are organised, implemented and delivered will also be examined.DiscussionIn this review, we consider public health strategies which reduce and prevent inequalities in the prevalence of childhood obesity, highlight any gaps in the evidence base and seek to establish how such public health interventions are organised, implemented and delivered. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42011001740.
| S-EPMC3351709 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAdolescent multiple risk behaviour (MRB) continues to be a global health issue. Most interventions have focused on the proximal causes of adolescent MRB such as peer or family influence, rather than targeting the wider environmental or structural context. There is increasing recognition that community mobilisation approaches could be beneficial for adolescent health. Despite this, there are gaps in the current literature, theory and implementation that would benefit from a realist approach due to the suitability of this methodology to analysing complex interventions. The objective of this study is to understand 'how, why, for whom and in what circumstances and time periods' do community mobilisation interventions work to prevent and/or reduce adolescent multiple risk behaviour.MethodsThis is a protocol for a realist review. The review will use a six-stage iterative process, guided by the RAMESES framework. We will systematically search PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, CINAHL and Sociological Abstracts, from their inception to 2021. Studies will be screened for relevance to the programme theory and included based on a priori eligibility criteria including (1) reporting a community mobilisation intervention (2) targeting two health risk behaviors (3) for adolescent populations. Two independent reviewers will select, screen and extract data related to the program theory from all relevant sources. A realist logic of analysis will be used to identify all context-mechanism-outcome configurations that contribute to our programme theory. The findings will be synthesised to produce a refined programme theory model.DiscussionThe goal of this realist review is to identify and refine a programme theory for community mobilisation approaches to the prevention and/or reduction of adolescent multiple risk behaviour. Our aim is that the findings surrounding the programme theory refinement can be used to develop and implement adolescent multiple risk behaviour interventions and maintain collaboration between local policy makers, researchers and community members.Systematic review registrationThis realist review is registered on the PROSPERO database (registration number: CRD42020205342).
| S-EPMC8117311 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionWith digital and social media advances, animated health communications (health animations) are highly prevalent globally, yet the evidence base underpinning them remains unclear and limited. While individual studies have attempted to explore the effectiveness, acceptability and usability of specific features of health animations, there is substantial heterogeneity in study design, comparators and the animation design and content. Consequently, there is a need to synthesise evidence of health animations using an approach that recognises this contextual complexity, which may affect their impact.Methods and analysisThis project aims to understand why, how, for whom, to what extent and in which contexts health animations are expected to promote preventive health behaviours. We will conduct a realist review following Pawson's five iterative stages to (1) define the review scope and locate existing theories; (2) search for evidence; (3) select and appraise evidence; (4) extract data and (5) synthesise data and refine theory. Engagement with stakeholders involved in developing, testing, implementing or commissioning health communications, including animations, will allow the initial programme theory to be tested and refined. The findings will be reported in accordance with Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval for the public stakeholder work was provided by the Northumbria University Research Ethics Committee. We will disseminate the findings widely through outputs tailored to target specific professional, public and patient audiences. Dissemination will occur through stakeholder engagement as part of the research, a peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations.Prospero registration numberCRD42023447127.
| S-EPMC11331919 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDespite recent focus on improving health care in care homes, it is unclear what role general practitioners (GPs) should play. To provide evidence for future practice we set out to explore how GPs have been involved in such improvements.MethodsRealist review incorporated theory-driven literature searches and stakeholder interviews, supplemented by focussed searches on GP-led medication reviews and end-of-life care. Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Web of Science, and the Cochrane library were searched. Grey literature was identified through internet searches and professional networks. Studies were included based upon relevance. Data were coded to develop and test contexts, mechanisms, and outcomes for improvements involving GPs.ResultsEvidence was synthesized from 30 articles. Programme theories described: (i) "negotiated working with GPs," where other professionals led improvement and GPs provided expertise; and (ii) "GP involvement in national/regional improvement programmes." The expertise of GPs was vital to many improvement programmes, with their medical expertise or role as coordinators of primary care proving pivotal. GPs had limited training in quality improvement (QI) and care home improvement work had to be negotiated in the context of wider primary care commitments.ConclusionsGPs are central to QI in health care in care homes. Their contributions relate to their specialist expertise and recognition as leaders of primary care but are challenged by available time and resources to develop this role.
| S-EPMC9909664 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:The economic determinants of health have been widely recognised as crucial factors affecting health; however, to date, no comprehensive review has been undertaken to summarise these factors and the ways in which they can influence health. We conceptualise the economy as a complex system made up of underlying approaches, regulation from institutions, markets, finance, labour, the public-private balance as well as production and distributional effects, which collectively impact on health through the effect of moderators. This protocol details the methods for an umbrella review to explore the macro-economic factors, strategies, policies and interventions that affect health outcomes and health inequalities. METHODS:We will identify relevant systematic reviews using search terms derived from the Journal of Economic Literature classification. Reviews will be included if they meet the Database of Abstracts and Reviews of Effects criteria for systematic reviews. Reviews of studies with and without controls will be included; both association and intervention studies will be included. Primary outcomes will include but are not limited to morbidity, mortality, prevalence and incidence of conditions and life expectancy. Secondary outcomes will include health inequalities by gender, ethnicity or socio-economic status. Six databases will be searched using tailored versions of our piloted search strategy to locate relevant reviews. Data will be extracted using a standardized pro forma, and the findings will be synthesized into a conceptual framework to address our review aim. DISCUSSION:Our umbrella review protocol provides a robust method to systematically appraise the evidence in this field, using new conceptual models derived specifically to address the study question. This will yield important information for policymakers, practitioners and researchers at the local, national and international level. It will also help set the future research agenda in this field and guide the development of interventions. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:This umbrella review protocol has been registered with PROSPERO CRD42017068357 .
| S-EPMC5670527 | biostudies-literature