Search

Background: Virtual care quickly became of crucial importance to health systems around the world during the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite the potential of virtual care to enhance access for some communities, the scale and pace at which services were virtualized did not leave many organizations with sufficient time and resources to ensure optimal and equitable delivery of care for everyone. The objective of this paper is to outline the experiences of health care organizations rapidly implementing virtual care during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic and examine whether and how health equity was considered. Methods: We used an exploratory, multiple case study approach involving four health and social service organizations providing virtual care services to structurally marginalized communities in the province of Ontario, Canada. We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with providers, managers, and patients to understand the challenges experienced by organizations and the strategies put in place to support health equity during the rapid virtualization of care. Thirty-eight interviews were thematically analyzed using rapid analytic techniques. Results: Organizations experienced challenges related to infrastructure availability, digital health literacy, culturally appropriate approaches, capacity for health equity, and virtual care suitability. Strategies to support health equity included the provision of blended models of care, creation of volunteer and staff support teams, participation in community engagement and outreach, and securement of infrastructure for clients. We put our findings into the context of an existing framework conceptualizing access to health care and expand on what this means for equitable access to virtual care for structurally marginalized communities. Conclusion: This paper highlights the need to pay greater attention to the role of health equity in virtual care delivery and situate that conversation around existing inequitable structures in the health care system that are perpetuated when delivering care virtually. An equitable and sustainable approach to virtual care delivery will require applying an intersectionality lens on the strategies and solutions needed to address existing inequities in the system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Walkability is a popular term used to describe aspects of the built and social environment that have important population-level impacts on physical activity, energy balance, and health. Although the term is widely used by researchers, practitioners, and the general public, and multiple operational definitions and walkability measurement tools exist, there are is no agreed-upon conceptual definition of walkability.Method: To address this gap, researchers from Memorial University of Newfoundland hosted "The Future of Walkability Measures Workshop" in association with researchers from the Canadian Urban Environmental Health Research Consortium (CANUE) in November 2017. During the workshop, trainees, researchers, and practitioners worked together in small groups to iteratively develop and reach consensus about a conceptual definition and name for walkability. The objective of this paper was to discuss and propose a conceptual definition of walkability and related concepts.Results: In discussions during the workshop, it became clear that the term walkability leads to a narrow conception of the environmental features associated with health as it inherently focuses on walking. As a result, we suggest that the term Active Living Environments, as has been previously proposed in the literature, are more appropriate. We define Active Living Environments (ALEs) as the emergent natural, built, and social properties of neighbourhoods that promote physical activity and health and allow for equitable access to health-enhancing resources.Conclusions: We believe that this broader conceptualization allows for a more comprehensive understanding of how built, natural, and social environments can contribute to improved health for all members of the population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Rigorously designed longitudinal studies can inform how best to reduce the widening health gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous children.Methods: A systematic review was performed to identify and present the breadth and depth of longitudinal studies reporting the health and well-being of Indigenous children (aged 0-18 years) globally. Databases were searched up to 23 June 2020. Study characteristics were mapped according to domains of the life course model of health. Risk of bias was assessed using the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Study Quality Assessment Tools. Reported level of Indigenous involvement was also appraised; PROSPERO registration CRD42018089950.Results: From 5545 citations, 380 eligible papers were included for analysis, representing 210 individual studies. Of these, 41% were located in Australia (n = 88), 22.8% in the USA (n = 42), 11.9% in Canada (n = 25) and 10.9% in New Zealand (n = 23). Research tended to focus on either health outcomes (50.9%) or health-risk exposures (43.8%); 55% of studies were graded as 'good' quality; and 89% of studies made at least one reference to the involvement of Indigenous peoples over the course of their research.Conclusions: We identified gaps in the longitudinal assessment of cultural factors influencing Indigenous child health at the macrosocial level, including connection to culture and country, intergenerational trauma, and racism or discrimination. Future longitudinal research needs to be conducted with strong Indigenous leadership and participation including holistic concepts of health. This is critical if we are to better understand the systematic factors driving health inequities experienced by Indigenous children globally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]