Search

Background: Evidence suggests that transgender (trans) individuals in Canada are a medically underserved population; barriers range from lack of provider knowledge on trans issues to refusal of care. This paper provides the first formal estimation of health care inequalities between trans and cisgender individuals in Ontario, Canada.Methods: Weighted statistics from the Ontario-wide Trans PULSE Project (n = 433) were compared with age-standardized Ontario data from the Canadian Community Health Survey (n = 39,980) to produce standardized prevalence differences (SPDs). Analysis was also conducted separately for trans men and trans women, each compared to the age-standardized Ontario population.Results: An estimated 33.2% (26.4,40.9) of trans Ontarians reported a past-year unmet health care need in excess of the 10.7% expected based on the age-standardized Ontario population. Inequality was greatest comparing trans with cisgender men (SPD = 34.4% (23.0, 46.1). While trans Ontarians evaluated health care availability in Ontario similarly to the broader population, they were significantly more likely to evaluate availability in their community as fair or poor.Conclusions: Trans Ontarians experience inequalities in perception and reported experiences of health care access, with 43.9% reporting a past-year unmet health care need. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This is the eighth in a series of papers reporting Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) in a local healthcare setting. The SHARE Program was a systematic, integrated, evidence-based program for disinvestment within a large Australian health service. One of the aims was to explore methods to deliver existing high quality synthesised evidence directly to decision-makers to drive decision-making proactively. An Evidence Dissemination Service (EDS) was proposed. While this was conceived as a method to identify disinvestment opportunities, it became clear that it could also be a way to review all practices for consistency with current evidence. This paper reports the development, implementation and evaluation of two models of an in-house EDS.Methods: Frameworks for development of complex interventions, implementation of evidence-based change, and evaluation and explication of processes and outcomes were adapted and/or applied. Mixed methods including a literature review, surveys, interviews, workshops, audits, document analysis and action research were used to capture barriers, enablers and local needs; identify effective strategies; develop and refine proposals; ascertain feedback and measure outcomes.Results: Methods to identify, capture, classify, store, repackage, disseminate and facilitate use of synthesised research evidence were investigated. In Model 1, emails containing links to multiple publications were sent to all self-selected participants who were asked to determine whether they were the relevant decision-maker for any of the topics presented, whether change was required, and to take the relevant action. This voluntary framework did not achieve the aim of ensuring practice was consistent with current evidence. In Model 2, the need for change was established prior to dissemination, then a summary of the evidence was sent to the decision-maker responsible for practice in the relevant area who was required to take appropriate action and report the outcome. This mandatory governance framework was successful. The factors influencing decisions, processes and outcomes were identified.Conclusion: An in-house EDS holds promise as a method of identifying disinvestment opportunities and/or reviewing local practice for consistency with current evidence. The resource-intensive nature of delivery of the EDS is a potential barrier. The findings from this study will inform further exploration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Health economists use "willingness-to-pay" to assess the prospective value of novel interventions. The technique remains controversial, not least with respect to the formats under which values are elicited. The paper analyses the results of a series of studies of the same intervention valued by the same population, in which different elicitation formats were employed. The findings support the hypothesis that data collected using different formats give rise to different demand curves, from which different inferences about demand elasticity, profitability and consumer surplus will be derived. Judgements as to the relative merits of rival interventions depend crucially upon whichever format has been used to evaluate each intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]