Dataset Information

Visualizing Health Equity: Qualitative Perspectives on the Value and Limits of Equity Images.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Health educators and advocacy groups often use side-by-side visual images to communicate about equity and to distinguish it from equality. Despite the near-ubiquity of these images, little is known about how they are understood by different audiences.

Aims

To assess the effectiveness of an image commonly used to communicate about health equity.

Method

In 167 interviews with health stakeholders in Greater Cleveland, Ohio, in 2018 to 2019, a commonly used health equity image was shown to participants, who were asked to interpret its meaning. Interviewees included 21 health professionals, 21 clinicians, 22 metro-wide decision makers, 24 community leaders, and 79 community members.

Results

About two thirds of our socioeconomically, racial/ethnically, educationally, and professionally diverse sample said the equity image helped clarify the distinction between "equality" and "equity." Yet less than one third offered an interpretation consistent with the image's goals of foregrounding not only injustice but also a need for systemic change. Patterns of misinterpretation were especially common among two groups: ideological conservatives and those of lower socioeconomic status. Conservatives were most likely to object to the image's message.

Conclusions

Equity images are widely used by public health educators and advocates, yet they do not consistently communicate the message that achieving equity requires systemic change. In this moment of both public health crisis and urgent concern about systemic racism, new visual tools for communicating this crucial message are needed.

SUBMITTER: Willen SS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8564227 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:International collaborations have become the standard model for global health research and often include researchers and institutions from high income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). While such collaborations are important for generating new knowledge that will help address global health inequities, there is evidence to suggest that current forms of collaboration may reproduce unequal power relations. Therefore, we conducted a qualitative study with scientists, researchers and those involved in research management, working in international health collaborations. Interviews were conducted between October 2019 and March 2020. We conducted 13 interviews with 15 participants. From our findings, we derive three major themes. First, our results reflect characteristics of equitable, collaborative research relationships. Here we find both relational features, specifically trust and belonging, and structural features, including clear contractual agreements, capacity building, inclusive divisions of labour, and the involvement of local communities. Second, we discuss obstacles to develop equitable collaborations. These include exclusionary labour practices, donor-driven research agendas, overall research culture, lack of accountability and finally, the inadequate financing of indirect costs for LMIC institutions. Third, we discuss the responsibilities for promoting science equity of funders, LMIC researchers, LMIC institutions, and LMIC governments. While other empirical studies have suggested similar features of equity, our findings extend these features to include local communities as collaborators in research projects and not only as beneficiaries. We also suggest the importance of funders paying for indirect costs, without which the capacity of LMIC institutions will continually erode. And finally, our study shows the responsibilities of LMIC actors in developing equitable collaborations, which have largely been absent from the literature.

Project description:BackgroundMultisectoral and public-private partnerships are critical in building the necessary infrastructure, policy, and political will to ameliorate health inequity. A focus on health equity by researchers, practitioners, and decision-makers prioritizes action to address the systematic, avoidable, and unjust differences in health status across population groups sustained over time and generations that are beyond the control of individuals. Health equity requires a collective process in shaping the health and wellbeing of the communities in which we live, learn, work, play, and grow. This paper explores multisectoral leaders' understanding of the social, environmental, and economic conditions that produce and sustain health inequity in northern Arizona, a geographically expansive, largely rural, and culturally diverse region.MethodsData are drawn from the Southwest Health Equity Research Collaborative's Regional Health Equity Survey (RHES). The RHES is a community-engaged, cross-sectional online survey comprised of 31 close-ended and 17 open-ended questions. Created to assess cross-sectoral regional and collective capacity to address health inequity and inform multisectoral action for improving community health, the RHES targeted leaders representing five rural northern Arizona counties and 13 sectors. Select open-ended questions were analyzed using an a priori coding scheme and emergent coding with thematic analysis.ResultsAlthough leaders were provided the definition and asked to describe the root causes of inequities, the majority of leaders described social determinants of health (SDoH). When leaders described root causes of health inequity, they articulated systemic factors affecting their communities, describing discrimination and unequal allocation of power and resources. Most leaders described the SDoH by discussing compounding factors of poverty, transportation, housing, and rurality among others, that together exacerbate inequity. Leaders also identified specific strategies to address SDoH and advance health equity in their communities, ranging from providing direct services to activating partnerships across organizations and sectors in advocacy for policy change.ConclusionOur findings indicate that community leaders in the northern Arizona region acknowledge the importance of multisectoral collaborations in improving health equity for the populations that they serve. However, a common understanding of health equity remains to be widely established, which is essential for conducting effective multisectoral work to advance health equity.

Project description:BackgroundHealth systems are increasingly implementing interventions to reduce older patients' use of low-value medications. However, prescribers' perspectives on medication value and the acceptability of interventions to reduce low-value prescribing are poorly understood.ObjectiveTo identify the characteristics that affect the value of a medication and those factors influencing low-value prescribing from the perspective of primary care physicians.DesignQualitative study using semi-structured interviews.SettingAcademic and community primary care practices within University of Pittsburgh Medical Center health system.ParticipantsSixteen primary care physicians.MeasurementsWe elicited 16 prescribers' perspectives on definitions and examples of low-value prescribing in older adults, the factors that incentivize them to engage in such prescribing, and the characteristics of interventions that would make them less likely to engage in low-value prescribing.ResultsWe identified three key themes. First, prescribers viewed low-value prescribing among older adults as common, characterized both by features of the medications themselves and of the particular patients to whom they were prescribed. Second, prescribers described the causes of low-value prescribing as multifactorial, with factors related to patients, prescribers, and the health system as a whole, making low-value prescribing a default practice pattern. Third, interventions addressing low-value prescribing must minimize the cognitive load and time pressures that make low-value prescribing common. Interventions increasing time pressure or cognitive load, such as increased documentation, were considered less acceptable.ConclusionsOur findings demonstrate that low-value prescribing is a well-recognized phenomenon, and that interventions to reduce low-value prescribing must consider physicians' perspectives and address the specific patient, prescriber and health system factors that make low-value prescribing a default practice.

Project description:Artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) tools have the potential to improve health equity. However, many historically underrepresented communities have not been engaged in AI/ML training, research, and infrastructure development. Therefore, AIM-AHEAD (Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning Consortium to Advance Health Equity and Researcher Diversity) seeks to increase participation and engagement of researchers and communities through mutually beneficial partnerships. The purpose of this paper is to summarize feedback from listening sessions conducted by the AIM-AHEAD Coordinating Center in February 2022, titled the "AIM-AHEAD Community Building Convention (ACBC)." A total of six listening sessions were held over three days. A total of 977 people registered with AIM-AHEAD to attend ACBC and 557 individuals attended the listening sessions across stakeholder groups. Facilitators led the conversation based on a series of guiding questions, and responses were captured through voice and chat via the Slido platform. A professional third-party provider transcribed the audio. Qualitative analysis included data from transcripts and chat logs. Thematic analysis was then used to identify common and unique themes across all transcripts. Six main themes arose from the sessions. Attendees felt that storytelling would be a powerful tool in communicating the impact of AI/ML in promoting health equity, trust building is vital and can be fostered through existing trusted relationships, and diverse communities should be involved every step of the way. Attendees shared a wealth of information that will guide AIM-AHEAD's future activities. The sessions highlighted the need for researchers to translate AI/ML concepts into vignettes that are digestible to the larger public, the importance of diversity, and how open-science platforms can be used to encourage multi-disciplinary collaboration. While the sessions confirmed some of the existing barriers in applying AI/ML for health equity, they also offered new insights that were captured in the six themes.

Project description:ObjectivesShared decision making is essential to deprescribing unnecessary or harmful medications in older adults, yet patients' and caregivers' perspectives on medication value and how this affects their willingness to discontinue a medication are poorly understood. We sought to identify the most significant factors that impact the perceived value of a medication from the perspective of patients and caregivers.DesignQualitative study using focus groups conducted in September and October 2018.SettingParticipants from the Pepper Geriatric Research Registry (patients) and the Pitt+Me Registry (caregivers) maintained by the University of Pittsburgh.ParticipantsSix focus groups of community-dwelling adults aged 65 years or older, or their caregivers, prescribed five or more medications in the preceding 12 months.MeasurementsWe sought to identify (1) general views on medication value and what makes medication worth taking; (2) how specific features such as cost or side effects impact perceived value; and (3) reactions to clinical scenarios related to deprescribing.ResultsWe identified four themes. Perceived effectiveness was the primary factor that caused participants to consider a medication to be of high value. Participants considered a medication to be of low value if it adversely affected quality of life. Participants also cited cost when determining value, especially if it resulted in material sacrifices. Participants valued medications prescribed by providers with whom they had good relationships rather than valuing level of training. When presented with clinical scenarios, participants ably weighed these factors when determining the value of a medication and indicated whether they would adhere to a deprescribing recommendation.ConclusionWe identified that perceived effectiveness, adverse effects on quality of life, cost, and a strong relationship with the prescriber influenced patients' and caregivers' views on medication value. These findings will enable prescribers to engage older patients in shared decision making when deprescribing unnecessary medications and will allow health systems to incorporate patient-centered assessment of value into systems-based deprescribing interventions. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:746-753, 2020.