Dataset Information

Preparing social workers to address health inequities emerging during the COVID-19 pandemic by building capacity for health policy: a scoping review protocol

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought tremendous changes in healthcare delivery and exacerbated a wide range of inequities. Social workers across a broad range of healthcare settings bring an expertise in social, behavioural and mental healthcare needed to help address these health inequities. In addition, social workers integrate policy-directed interventions and solutions in clinical practice, which is a needed perspective for recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. It remains unclear, however, what the most pressing policy issues are that have emerged during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, many social workers in health settings tend to underuse policy in their direct practice. The objectives of this scoping review are to: (1) systematically scope the literature on social work, COVID-19 pandemic and policy; and (2) describe the competencies required by social workers and the social work profession to address the policy issues emerging during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods and analysis

The scoping review follows Arksey and O’Malley’s five-stage framework. Identification of literature published between 1 December 2019 and the search date, 31 March 2021, will take place in two stages: (1) title and abstract review, and (2) full-text review. In partnership with a health science librarian, the research team listed keywords related to social work and policy to search databases including Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Social Services Abstract and Social Work Abstracts. Two graduate-level research assistants will conduct screening and full-text review. Data will then be extracted, charted, analysed and summarised to report on our results and implications on practice, policy and future research.

Ethics and dissemination

Results will help develop a policy practice competence framework to inform how social workers can influence policy. We will share our findings through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. This study does not require Research Ethics Board approval as it uses publicly available sources of data.

SUBMITTER: Ashcroft R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8572402 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFragile and conflict-affected settings (FCAS) have a strong need to improve the capacity of local health workers to conduct health research in order to improve health policy and health outcomes. Health research capacity building (HRCB) programmes are ideal to equip health workers with the needed skills and knowledge to design and lead health-related research initiatives. The study aimed to review the characteristics of HRCB studies in FCASs in order to identify their strengths and weaknesses, and to recommend future directions for the field.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review and searched four databases for peer-reviewed articles that reported an HRCB initiative targeting health workers in a FCAS and published after 2010. Commentaries and editorials, cross-sectional studies, presentations, and interventions that did not have a capacity building component were excluded. Data on bibliographies of the studies and HRCB interventions and their outcomes were extracted. A descriptive approach was used to report the data, and a thematic approach was used to analyse the qualitative data.ResultsOut of 8822 articles, a total of 20 were included based on the eligibility criteria. Most of the initiatives centred around topics of health research methodology (70%), targeted an individual-level capacity building angle (95%), and were delivered in university or hospital settings (75%). Ten themes were identified and grouped into three categories. Significant challenges revolved around the lack of local research culture, shortages in logistic capability, interpersonal difficulties, and limited assessment and evaluation of HRCB programmes. Strengths of HRCB interventions included being locally driven, incorporating interactive pedagogies, and promoting multidisciplinary and holistic training. Common recommendations covered by the studies included opportunities to improve the content, logistics, and overarching structural components of HRCB initiatives.ConclusionOur findings have important implications on health research policy and related capacity building efforts. Importantly, FCASs should prioritize (1) funding HRCB efforts, (2) strengthening equitable international, regional, and national partnerships, (3) delivering locally led HRCB programmes, (4) ensuring long-term evaluations and implementing programmes at multiple levels of the healthcare system, and (5) adopting engaging and interactive approaches.

Project description:BackgroundAddressing perinatal health inequities is the joint responsibility of professionals working for local governments, the medical, social, and public health sector. Cross-sectoral collaboration between these professionals is challenging. For such collaborations to succeed, a transition, ie, a fundamental shift in the dominant structure, culture, and practices at the systems level, is necessary. We investigated facilitators and barriers for cross-sectoral collaborations, when addressing perinatal health inequities in the Netherlands. Additionally, we studied how cross-sectoral collaborations can be facilitated by action research.MethodsWe used interview and questionnaire data of the Healthy Pregnancy 4 All-3 (HP4All-3) program, which resulted from action research in six Dutch municipalities. All interviews were coded using open codes related to facilitators and barriers for cross-sectoral collaboration and categorized into three subgroups: structural, cultural, or practical. The answers to the questionnaire were analyzed and summarized quantitatively.ResultsWe conducted 53 interviews with a total of 81 professionals. The most important ingredients for cross-sectoral collaborations mentioned by the interviewees were: (1) structural: having a solid network with a clear overview of professionals working in the different sectors, (2) cultural: having a joint vision/goal, and (3) practical: short lines of communication and timely sharing of information. A total of 85 professionals filled in (parts of) the questionnaire. Two-thirds to over 80 percent replied that the HP4All-3 program had an added value in building cross-sectoral collaborations.ConclusionOur research shows that cross-sectoral collaborations in the context of perinatal health are hampered by structural, cultural, and practical barriers. Analyzing facilitators and barriers at these three levels helps to identify bottlenecks in cross-sectoral collaboration. Action researchers can be of great advantage in facilitating collaboration, as they can offer an open setting for reflection and instigate a sense of urgency for building collaborations.

Project description:IntroductionHealth inequities are differences in health between groups of people that are avoidable, unfair and unjust. Achieving equitable health outcomes requires approaches that recognise and account for the differences in levels of advantage between groups. Implementation science, which studies how to translate evidence-based interventions into routine practice, is increasingly recognised as an approach to address health inequities by identifying factors and processes that enable equitable implementation of interventions. This article describes the protocol for a scoping review of the literature relating to the equitable implementation of interventions, focusing on ethnicity-related health inequities. The scoping review aims to identify equity-focused implementation science theories, models and frameworks (TMFs) and to synthesise and analyse the evidence relating to the factors that aid or inhibit equitable implementation of health interventions.Methods and analysisThe scoping review is guided by the methodology developed by Arksey and O'Malley and enhanced by Levac and colleagues. Relevant literature will be identified by searching electronic databases, grey literature, hand-searching key journals and searching the reference lists and citations of studies that meet the inclusion criteria. We will focus on literature published from 2011 to the present. Titles, abstracts and full-text articles will be screened independently by two researchers; any disagreements will be resolved through discussion with another researcher. Extracted data will be summarised and analysed to address the scoping review aims.Ethics and disseminationThe scoping review will map the available literature on equity-focused implementation science TMFs and the facilitators and barriers to equitable implementation of interventions. Ethical approval is not required. Dissemination of the results of the review will include publications in peer-review journals and conference and stakeholder presentations. Findings from the review will support those implementing interventions to ensure that the implementation pathway and processes are equitable, thereby improving health outcomes and reducing existing inequities.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To map the existing literature and describe interventions aimed at building the capacity of patients to participate in care during hospitalisation by: (1) describing and categorising the aspects of care targeted by these interventions and (2) identifying the behaviour change techniques (BCTs) used in these interventions. A patient representative participated in all aspects of this project. DESIGN:Scoping review. DATA SOURCES:MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL (Inception -2017). STUDY SELECTION:Studies reporting primary research studies on building the capacity of hospitalised adult patients to participate in care which described or included one or more structured or systematic interventions and described the outcomes for at least the key stakeholder group were included. DATA EXTRACTION:Title and abstract screening and full text screening were conducted by pairs of trained reviewers. One reviewer extracted data, which were verified by a second reviewer. Interventions were classified according to seven aspects of care relevant to hospital settings. BCTs identified in the articles were assigned through consensus of three reviewers. RESULTS:Database searches yielded a total 9899 articles, resulting in 87 articles that met the inclusion criteria. Interventions directed at building patient capacity to participate in care while hospitalised were categorised as those related to improving: patient safety (20.9%); care coordination (5.7%); effective treatment (5.7%) and/or patient-centred care using: bedside nursing handovers (5.7%); communication (29.1%); care planning (14%) or the care environment (19.8%). The majority of studies reported one or more positive outcomes from the defined intervention. Adding new elements (objects) to the environment and restructuring the social and/or physical environment were the most frequently identified BCTs. CONCLUSIONS:The majority of studies to build capacity for participation in care report one or more positive outcomes, although a more comprehensive analysis is warranted.

Project description:BackgroundBuilding healthcare service and health professionals' capacity and capability to rapidly translate research evidence into health practice is critical to the effectiveness and sustainability of healthcare systems. This review scoped the literature describing programmes to build knowledge translation capacity and capability in health professionals and healthcare services, and the evidence supporting these.MethodsThis scoping review was undertaken using the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methodology. Four research databases (Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycInfo) were searched using a pre-determined strategy. Eligible studies described a programme implemented in healthcare settings to build health professional or healthcare service knowledge translation capacity and capability. Abstracts and full texts considered for inclusion were screened by two researchers. Data from included papers were extracted using a bespoke tool informed by the scoping review questions.ResultsDatabase searches yielded 10,509 unique citations, of which 136 full texts were reviewed. Thirty-four papers were included, with three additional papers identified on citation searching, resulting in 37 papers describing 34 knowledge translation capability building programmes. Programmes were often multifaceted, comprising a combination of two or more strategies including education, dedicated implementation support roles, strategic research-practice partnerships and collaborations, co-designed knowledge translation capability building programmes, and dedicated funding for knowledge translation. Many programmes utilised experiential and collaborative learning, and targeted either individual, team, organisational, or system levels of impact. Twenty-seven programmes were evaluated formally using one or more data collection methods. Outcomes measured varied significantly and included participant self-reported outcomes, perceived barriers and enablers of knowledge translation, milestone achievement and behaviour change. All papers reported that programme objectives were achieved to varying degrees.ConclusionsKnowledge translation capacity and capability building programmes in healthcare settings are multifaceted, often include education to facilitate experiential and collaborative learning, and target individual, team, organisational, or supra-organisational levels of impact. Although measured differently across the programmes, the outcomes were positive. The sustainability of programmes and outcomes may be undermined by the lack of long-term funding and inconsistent evaluation. Future research is required to develop evidence-informed frameworks to guide methods and outcome measures for short-, medium- and longer-term programme evaluation at the different structural levels.

Project description:ObjectiveThe coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic accelerated the adoption of telehealth technologies. Persistent disparities in telecommunication devices, internet connectivity, and digital literacy, however, undermine the potential for telemedicine to reduce barriers to health care access. Health systems may have a role in addressing these structural inequities. We describe the operationalization and feasibility of an internet-enabled tablet loaner program at a freestanding children's hospital.MethodsBetween October 2020 and October 2021, pediatricians enrolled families through ambulatory clinics at an academic urban freestanding children's hospital. Eligibility criteria included difficulty accessing virtual care due to lack of stable internet or device. Tablets featured an unlimited data package, access to the patient portal, and virtual visit platform. A private technology company managed device configuration and distribution. To characterize program impact, we compared the proportion of completed clinical encounters during the intervention compared with a preintervention period (March 2020-October 2020) and conducted a qualitative survey with program participants. Participant and visit characteristics were obtained from the electronic medical record and summarized with descriptive statistics.ResultsA total of 111 families participated in the tablet loaner program, the majority of whom were Hispanic (51.4%) and black, non-Hispanic (26.1%), and publicly insured (64.9%). Between the preintervention and intervention periods, there was a significant increase in completed video- and phone-based virtual visits (75.3 vs. 79.1%, p = 0.038). The proportion of video-based only visits increased from 82.9 to 88.9%. p < 0.001. Families reported that the tablet improved the patient's ability to receive medical care (93.7%) and was easy to use (93.9%).ConclusionThe tablet loaner initiative was associated with an improvement in markers of virtual visit engagement and health care experience. Efforts to expand telemedicine equity must consider technological access and digital literacy as well as broad coalitions across industry, government, and community organizations.