Dataset Information

Health equity audits: a systematic review of the effectiveness

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

The purpose of this systematic review is to explore whether health equity audits (HEAs) are effective in improving the equity of service provision and reducing health inequalities.

Design

Three databases (Ovid Medline, Embase, Web of Science) and grey literature (Opengrey, Google Scholar) were systematically searched for articles published after 2000, reporting on the effectiveness of HEA. Title and abstracts were screened according to an eligibility criteria to identify studies which included a full audit cycle (eg, initial equity analysis, service changes and review). Data were extracted from studies meeting the eligibility criteria after full text review and risk of bias assessed using the ROBINS-I tool.

Results

The search strategy identified 596 articles. Fifteen records were reviewed in full text and three records were included in final review. An additional HEA report was identified through contact with an author. Three different HEAs were included from one peer-reviewed journal article, two published reports and one unpublished report (n=4 records on n=3 HEAs). This included 102 851 participants and over 148 practices/pharmacies (information was not recorded for all records). One study reviewed health equity impacts of HEA implementation in key indicators for coronary heart disease, type 2 diabetes and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Two HEAs explored Stop Smoking Services on programme access and equity. All reported some degree of reduction in health inequalities compared with prior HEA implementation. However, impact of HEA implementation compared with other concurrent programmes and initiatives was unclear. All included studies were judged to have moderate to serious risk of bias.

Conclusions

There is an urgent need to identify effective interventions to address health inequalities. While HEAs are recommended, we only identified limited weak evidence to support their use. More evidence is needed to explore whether HEA implementation can reduce inequalities and which factors are influencing effectiveness.

Trial registration number

The study was registered prior to its conduction in PROSPERO (CRD 42020218642).

SUBMITTER: van Daalen K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8587574 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Web-based self-care interventions have the potential to reduce health inequalities by removing barriers to access to health care. However, there is a lack of evidence about the equalizing effects of these interventions on chronic conditions. OBJECTIVE:This study investigated the differences in the effectiveness of web-based behavioral change interventions for the self-care of high burden chronic health conditions (eg, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD], diabetes, and osteoarthritis) across socioeconomic and cultural groups. METHODS:A systematic review was conducted, following Cochrane review guidelines. We conducted searches in Ovid Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases. Studies with any quantitative design were included (published between January 1, 2006, and February 20, 2019) if they investigated web-based self-care interventions targeting asthma, COPD, diabetes, and osteoarthritis; were conducted in any high-income country; and reported variations in health, behavior, or psychosocial outcomes across social groups. Study outcomes were investigated for heterogeneity, and the possibility of a meta-analysis was explored. A narrative synthesis was provided together with a novel figure that was developed for this review, displaying heterogeneous outcomes. RESULTS:Overall, 7346 records were screened and 18 studies were included, most of which had a high or critical risk of bias. Important study features and essential data were often not reported. The meta-analysis was not possible due to the heterogeneity of outcomes. There was evidence that intervention effectiveness was modified by participants' social characteristics. Minority ethnic groups were found to benefit more from interventions than majority ethnic groups. Single studies with variable quality showed that those with higher education, who were employed, and adolescents with divorced parents benefited more from interventions. The evidence for differences by age, gender, and health literacy was conflicting (eg, in some instances, older people benefited more, and in others, younger people benefited more). There was no evidence of differences in income, numeracy, or household size. CONCLUSIONS:There was evidence that web-based self-care interventions for chronic conditions can be advantageous for some social groups (ie, minority ethnic groups, adolescents with divorced parents) and disadvantageous for other (ie, low education, unemployed) social groups who have historically experienced health inequity. However, these findings should be treated with caution as most of the evidence came from a small number of low-quality studies. The findings for gender and health literacy were mixed across studies on diabetes, and the findings for age were mixed across studies on asthma, COPD, and diabetes. There was no evidence that income, numeracy, or the number of people living in the household modified intervention effectiveness. We conclude that there appear to be interaction effects, which warrant exploration in future research, and recommend a priori consideration of the predicted interaction effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42017056163; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=56163.

Project description:Introduction: Achieving equity in health care remains a challenge for health care systems worldwide and marked inequities in access and quality of care persist. Identifying health care equity indicators is an important first step in integrating the concept of equity into assessments of health care system performance, particularly in emergency care. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of administrative data-derived health care equity indicators and their association with socioeconomic determinants of health (SEDH) in emergency care settings. Following PRISMA-Equity reporting guidelines, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science were searched for relevant studies. The outcomes of interest were indicators of health care equity and the associated SEDH they examine. Results: Among 29 studies identified, 14 equity indicators were identified and grouped into four categories that reflect the patient emergency care pathway. Total emergency department (ED) visits and ambulatory care-sensitive condition-related ED visits were the two most frequently used equity indicators. The studies analyzed equity based on seven SEDH: social deprivation, income, education level, social class, insurance coverage, health literacy, and financial and nonfinancial barriers. Despite some conflicting results, all identified SEDH are associated with inequalities in access to and use of emergency care. Conclusion: The use of administrative data-derived indicators in combination with identified SEDH could improve the measurement of health care equity in emergency care settings across health care systems worldwide. Using a combination of indicators is likely to lead to a more comprehensive, well-rounded measurement of health care equity than using any one indicator in isolation. Although studies analyzed focused on emergency care settings, it seems possible to extrapolate these indicators to measure equity in other areas of the health care system. Further studies elucidating root causes of health inequities in and outside the health care system are needed.

Project description:UnlabelledPOLICY POINTS: Many barriers hamper advocacy for health equity, including the contemporary economic zeitgeist, the biomedical health perspective, and difficulties cooperating across policy sectors on the issue. Effective advocacy should include persistent efforts to raise awareness and understanding of the social determinants of health. Education on the social determinants as part of medical training should be encouraged, including professional training within disadvantaged communities. Advocacy organizations have a central role in advocating for health equity given the challenges bridging the worlds of civil society, research, and policy.ContextHealth inequalities are systematic differences in health among social groups that are caused by unequal exposure to-and distributions of-the social determinants of health (SDH). They are persistent between and within countries despite action to reduce them. Advocacy is a means of promoting policies that improve health equity, but the literature on how to do so effectively is dispersed. The aim of this review is to synthesize the evidence in the academic and gray literature and to provide a body of knowledge for advocates to draw on to inform their efforts.MethodsThis article is a systematic review of the academic literature and a fixed-length systematic search of the gray literature. After applying our inclusion criteria, we analyzed our findings according to our predefined dimensions of advocacy for health equity. Last, we synthesized our findings and made a critical appraisal of the literature.FindingsThe policy world is complex, and scientific evidence is unlikely to be conclusive in making decisions. Timely qualitative, interdisciplinary, and mixed-methods research may be valuable in advocacy efforts. The potential impact of evidence can be increased by "packaging" it as part of knowledge transfer and translation. Increased contact between researchers and policymakers could improve the uptake of research in policy processes. Researchers can play a role in advocacy efforts, although health professionals and disadvantaged people, who have direct contact with or experience of hardship, can be particularly persuasive in advocacy efforts. Different types of advocacy messages can accompany evidence, but messages should be tailored to advocacy target. Several barriers hamper advocacy efforts. The most frequently cited in the academic literature are the current political and economic zeitgeist and related public opinion, which tend to blame disadvantaged people for their ill health, even though biomedical approaches to health and political short-termism also act as barriers. These barriers could be tackled through long-term actions to raise public awareness and understanding of the SDH and through training of health professionals in advocacy. Advocates need to take advantage of "windows of opportunity," which open and close quickly, and demonstrate expertise and credibility.ConclusionsThis article brings together for the first time evidence from the academic and the gray literature and provides a building block for efforts to advocate for health equity. Evidence regarding many of the dimensions is scant, and additional research is merited, particularly concerning the applicability of findings outside the English-speaking world. Advocacy organizations have a central role in advocating for health equity, given the challenges bridging the worlds of civil society, research, and policy.

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.

Project description:This systematic review assessed the effectiveness of capacity building interventions relevant to public health practice. The aim is to inform and improve capacity building interventions.Four strategies were used: 1) electronic database searching; 2) reference lists of included papers; 3) key informant consultation; and 4) grey literature searching. Inclusion (e.g., published in English) and exclusion criteria (e.g., non-English language papers published earlier than 2005) are outlined with included papers focusing on capacity building, learning plans, or professional development plans within public health and related settings, such as non-governmental organizations, government, or community-based organizations relating to public health or healthcare. Outcomes of interest included changes in knowledge, skill or confidence (self-efficacy), changes in practice (application or intent), and perceived support or supportive environments, with outcomes reported at the individual, organizational or systems level(s). Quality assessment of all included papers was completed.Fourteen papers were included in this review. These papers reported on six intervention types: 1) internet-based instruction, 2) training and workshops, 3) technical assistance, 4) education using self-directed learning, 5) communities of practice, and 6) multi-strategy interventions. The available literature showed improvements in one or more capacity-building outcomes of interest, mainly in terms of individual-level outcomes. The available literature was moderate in quality and showed a range of methodological issues.There is evidence to inform capacity building programming and how interventions can be selected to optimize impact. Organizations should carefully consider methods for analysis of capacity building interventions offered; specifically, through which mechanisms, to whom, and for which purpose. Capacity-building interventions can enhance knowledge, skill, self-efficacy (including confidence), changes in practice or policies, behaviour change, application, and system-level capacity. However in applying available evidence, organizations should consider the outcomes of highest priority, selecting intervention(s) effective for the outcome(s) of interest. Examples are given for selecting intervention(s) to match priorities and context, knowing effectiveness evidence is only one consideration in decision making. Future evaluations should: extend beyond the individual level, assess outcomes at organizational and systems levels, include objective measures of effect, assess baseline conditions, and evaluate features most critical to the success of interventions.