Search

Background: Advances in health equity rely on representation of diverse groups in population health research samples. Despite progress in the diversification of research samples, continued expansion to include systematically excluded groups is needed to address health inequities. One such group that is infrequently represented in population health research are adults with intellectual disability. Individuals with intellectual disability experience pervasive health disparities. Representation in population health research is crucial to determine the root causes of inequity, understand the health of diverse populations, and address health disparities. The purpose of this paper was to develop recommendations for researchers to increase the accessibility of university health research and to support the inclusion of adults with intellectual disability as participants in health research. Methods: A comprehensive literature review, consultation with the university ethics review board, and review of United States federal regulations was completed to identify barriers to research participation for individuals with intellectual disability. A collaborative stakeholder working group developed recommendations and products to increase the accessibility of university research for participants with intellectual disability. Results: Eleven key barriers to research participation were identified including gaps in researchers' knowledge, lack of trust, accessibility and communication challenges, and systematic exclusion among others. Together the stakeholder working group compiled seven general recommendations for university health researchers to guide inclusion efforts. Recommendations included: 1) address the knowledge gap, 2) build community partnerships, 3) use plain language, 4) simplify consent and assent processes, 5) establish research capacity to consent, 6) offer universal supports and accommodations, and 7) practice accessible dissemination. In addition, four products were created as part of the stakeholder working group to be shared with researchers to support the inclusion of participants with intellectual disability. 1) Supports I Need Checklist, 2) Plain language glossary of health and research terms, 3) Understanding Consent and Assent in Plain Language, 4) Easy-Read Paper Template. Conclusion: Community members and individuals with intellectual disability want to be included in research and are eager to engage as research participants. It is the responsibility of the researcher to open the door to university health research. The recommendations discussed in this paper could increase accessibility for a broader range of research participants and, in particular, promote the inclusion of individuals with intellectual disability to advance health equity in population health research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In the U.S., strong ethnic/racial, socioeconomic, demographic, and geographic breastfeeding (BF) inequities persist, and African American and Hispanic women are less likely to meet their breastfeeding goals compared to White women. This systematic review (SR) was designed to answer the question: What is the impact of breastfeeding interventions targeting ethnic/racial minority women in the U.S. on improving BF initiation, duration and exclusivity rates? Methods: The SR was conducted following the Institute of Medicine Guidelines and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist. The study protocol was developed and registered a priori in PROSPERO (ID#CRD42020177764). The electronical databases searched was MEDLINE All (Ovid). Search strategies were led by the team's expert public health librarian using both controlled vocabulary and free text queries and were tested against a validated set of relevant papers included in existing reviews. The GRADE methodology was used to assess the quality of the studies. Results: We included 60 studies that had randomized (n = 25), observational (n = 24), quasi-experimental (n = 9), or cross-sectional (n = 2) designs. The studies focused on populations that were multi-ethnic/racial (n = 22), only Hispanic (n = 24), only Black (n = 13), and only American Indian (n = 1). The study interventions were classified following the socioecological model: macrosystem/policy level (n = 6); community level (n=51), which included healthcare organizations (n = 34), The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) (n = 9), and community organizations/public health institutions (n = 8); and interpersonal level (n = 3). Conclusions: Policy and community level interventions delivered through WIC, healthcare facilities, and community agencies) are likely to improve BF outcomes among women of color. The combination of interventions at different levels of the socioecological model has not been studied among minority women in the U.S. Implementation science research is needed to learn how best to scale up and sustain effective BF interventions, taking into account the needs and wants of minority women. Thus, it is strongly recommended to conduct large scale implementation research studies addressesing how to strengthen the different health and social environments surrounding women of color in the U.S. to improving their BF outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Indigenous children living in high income countries have a consistently high prevalence of mental health problems. We aimed to identify psychosocial risk and protective factors for mental health in this setting. Methods: A systematic review of studies published between 1996 and 2016 that quantitatively evaluated the association between psychosocial variables and mental health among Indigenous children living in high income countries was conducted. Psychosocial variables were grouped into commonly occurring domains. Individual studies were judged to provide evidence for an association between a domain and either good mental health, poor mental health, or a negligible or inconsistent association. The overall quality of evidence across all studies for each domain was assessed using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines. Results: Forty-seven papers were eligible (mainland US 30 [64%], Canada 8 [17%], Australia 7 [15%], Hawaii 4 [9%]), including 58,218 participants aged 4-20 years. Most papers were cross-sectional (39, 83%) and measured negative mental health outcomes (41, 87%). Children's negative cohesion with their families and the presence of adverse events appeared the most reliable predictors of increased negative mental health outcomes. Children's substance use, experiences of discrimination, comorbid internalising symptoms, and negative parental behaviour also provided evidence of associations with negative mental health outcomes. Positive family and peer relationships, high self-esteem and optimism were associated with increased positive mental health outcomes. Conclusions: Quantitative research investigating Indigenous children's mental health is largely cross-sectional and focused upon negative outcomes. Indigenous children living in high income countries share many of the same risk and protective factors associated with mental health. The evidence linking children's familial environment, psychological traits, substance use and experiences of discrimination with mental health outcomes highlights key targets for more concerted efforts to develop initiatives to improve the mental health of Indigenous children. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Healthcare organisations serve clients from diverse Indigenous and other ethnic and racial groups on a daily basis, and require appropriate client-centred systems and services for provision of optimal healthcare. Despite advocacy for systems-level approaches to cultural competence, the primary focus in the literature remains on competency strategies aimed at health promotion initiatives, workforce development and student education. This paper aims to bridge the gap in available evidence about systems approaches to cultural competence by systematically mapping key concepts, types of evidence, and gaps in research. Methods: A literature search was completed as part of a larger systematic search of evaluations and measures of cultural competence interventions in health care in Canada, the United States, Australia and New Zealand. Seventeen peer-reviewed databases, 13 websites and clearinghouses, and 11 literature reviews were searched from 2002 to 2015. Overall, 109 studies were found, with 15 evaluating systems-level interventions or describing measurements. Thematic analysis was used to identify key implementation principles, intervention strategies and outcomes reported. Results: Twelve intervention and three measurement studies met our inclusion criteria. Key principles for implementing systems approaches were: user engagement, organisational readiness, and delivery across multiple sites. Two key types of intervention strategies to embed cultural competence within health systems were: audit and quality improvement approaches and service-level policies or strategies. Outcomes were found for organisational systems, the client/practitioner encounter, health, and at national policy level. Discussion and implications: We could not determine the overall effectiveness of systems-level interventions to reform health systems because interventions were context-specific, there were too few comparative studies and studies did not use the same outcome measures. However, examined together, the intervention and measurement principles, strategies and outcomes provide a preliminary framework for implementation and evaluation of systems-level interventions to improve cultural competence. Identified gaps in the literature included a need for cost and effectiveness studies of systems approaches and explication of the effects of cultural competence on client experience. Further research is needed to explore the extent to which cultural competence improves health outcomes and reduces ethnic and racially-based healthcare disparities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The paper examines the role of community-based participatory research (CBPR) within the context of social justice literature and practice. Methods: Two CBPR case studies addressing health inequities related to Type 2 Diabetes and Cardiovascular disease were selected from a national cross-site study assessing effective academic-community research partnerships. One CBPR partnership works with African Americans in rural Pemiscot County, Missouri and the other CBPR partnership works with African American and Latinos in urban South Bronx, New York City. Data collection included semi-structured key informant interviews and focus groups. Analysis focused on partnerships' context/ history and their use of multiple justice-oriented strategies to achieve systemic and policy changes in order to address social determinants of health in their communities. Results: Community context and history shaped each partnership's strategies to address social determinants. Four social justice approaches (identity/recognition, procedural, distributive, and structural justice) used by both partnerships were identified. These social justice approaches were employed to address underlying causes of inequitable distribution of resources and power structures, while remaining within a scientific research framework. Conclusion: CBPR can bridge the role of science with civic engagement and political participation, empowering community members to become political agents who integrate evidence into their social justice organizing strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Financial protection against the cost of unforeseen ill health has become a global concern as expressed in the 2005 World Health Assembly resolution (WHA58.33), which urges its member states to "plan the transition to universal coverage of their citizens". An important element of financial risk protection is to distribute health care financing fairly in relation to ability to pay. The distribution of health care financing burden across socio-economic groups has been estimated for European countries, the USA and Asia. Until recently there was no such analysis in Africa and this paper seeks to contribute to filling this gap. It presents the first comprehensive analysis of the distribution of health care financing in relation to ability to pay in Ghana. Methods: Secondary data from the Ghana Living Standard Survey (GLSS) 2005/2006 were used. This was triangulated with data from the Ministry of Finance and other relevant sources, and further complemented with primary household data collected in six districts. We implored standard methodologies (including Kakwani index and test for dominance) for assessing progressivity in health care financing in this paper. Results: Ghana's health care financing system is generally progressive. The progressivity of health financing is driven largely by the overall progressivity of taxes, which account for close to 50% of health care funding. The national health insurance (NHI) levy (part of VAT) is mildly progressive and formal sector NHI payroll deductions are also progressive. However, informal sector NHI contributions were found to be regressive. Out-of-pocket payments, which account for 45% of funding, are regressive form of health payment to households. Conclusion: For Ghana to attain adequate financial risk protection and ultimately achieve universal coverage, it needs to extend pre-payment cover to all in the informal sector, possibly through funding their contributions entirely from tax, and address other issues affecting the expansion of the National Health Insurance. Furthermore, the pre-payment funding pool for health care needs to grow so budgetary allocation to the health sector can be enhanced. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Accurate measurement of health inequities is indispensable to track progress or to identify needs for health equity policy interventions. A key empirical task is to measure the extent to which observed inequality in health -- a difference in health -- is inequitable. Empirically operationalizing definitions of health inequity has generated an important question not considered in the conceptual literature on health inequity. Empirical analysis can explain only a portion of observed health inequality. This paper demonstrates that the treatment of unexplained inequality is not only a methodological but ethical question and that the answer to the ethical question -- whether unexplained health inequality is unfair -- determines the appropriate standardization method for health inequity analysis and can lead to potentially divergent estimates of health inequity. Methods: We use the American sample of the 2002-03 Joint Canada/United States Survey of Health and measure health by the Health Utilities Index (HUI). We model variation in the observed HUI by demographic, socioeconomic, health behaviour, and health care variables using Ordinary Least Squares. We estimate unfair HUI by standardizing fairness, removing the fair component from the observed HUI. We consider health inequality due to factors amenable to policy intervention as unfair. We contrast estimates of inequity using two fairness-standardization methods: direct (considering unexplained inequality as ethically acceptable) and indirect (considering unexplained inequality as unfair). We use the Gini coefficient to quantify inequity. Results: Our analysis shows that about 75% of the variation in the observed HUI is unexplained by the model. The direct standardization results in a smaller inequity estimate (about 60% of health inequality is inequitable) than the indirect standardization (almost all inequality is inequitable). Conclusions: The choice of the fairness-standardization method is ethical and influences the empirical health inequity results considerably. More debate and analysis is necessary regarding which treatment of the unexplained inequality has the stronger foundation in equity considerations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Accurate measurement of health inequities is indispensable to track progress or to identify needs for health equity policy interventions. A key empirical task is to measure the extent to which observed inequality in health - a difference in health - is inequitable. Empirically operationalizing definitions of health inequity has generated an important question not considered in the conceptual literature on health inequity. Empirical analysis can explain only a portion of observed health inequality. This paper demonstrates that the treatment of unexplained inequality is not only a methodological but ethical question and that the answer to the ethical question - whether unexplained health inequality is unfair - determines the appropriate standardization method for health inequity analysis and can lead to potentially divergent estimates of health inequity. Methods We use the American sample of the 2002-03 Joint Canada/United States Survey of Health and measure health by the Health Utilities Index (HUI). We model variation in the observed HUI by demographic, socioeconomic, health behaviour, and health care variables using Ordinary Least Squares. We estimate unfair HUI by standardizing fairness, removing the fair component from the observed HUI. We consider health inequality due to factors amenable to policy intervention as unfair. We contrast estimates of inequity using two fairness- standardization methods: direct (considering unexplained inequality as ethically acceptable) and indirect (considering unexplained inequality as unfair). We use the Gini coefficient to quantify inequity. Results Our analysis shows that about 75% of the variation in the observed HUI is unexplained by the model. The direct standardization results in a smaller inequity estimate (about 60% of health inequality is inequitable) than the indirect standardization (almost all inequality is inequitable). Conclusions The choice of the fairness-standardization method is ethical and influences the empirical health inequity results considerably. More debate and analysis is necessary regarding which treatment of the unexplained inequality has the stronger foundation in equity considerations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper we argue the importance of including gender and sexually diverse populations in policy development towards a more inclusive form of health promotion. We emphasize the need to address the broad health and wellbeing issues and needs of LGBT people, rather than exclusively using an illness-based focus such as HIV/AIDS. We critically examine the limitations of population health, the social determinants of health (SDOH), and public health goals, in light of the lack of recognition of gender and sexually diverse individuals and communities. By first acknowledging the unique health and social care needs of LGBT people, then employing anti-oppressive, critical and intersectional analyses we offer recommendations for how to make population health perspectives, public health goals, and the design of public health promotion policy more inclusive of gender and sexual diversity. In health promotion research and practice, representation matters. It matters which populations are being targeted for health promotion interventions and for what purposes, and it matters which populations are being overlooked. In Canada, current health promotion policy is informed by population health and social determinants of health (SDOH) perspectives, as demonstrated by Public Health Goals for Canada. With Canada's multicultural makeup comes the challenge of ensuring that diverse populations are equitably and effectively recognized in public health and health promotion policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of the paper is to critically review the notion of social capital and review empirical literature on the association between social capital and health across countries. The methodology used for the review includes a systematic search on electronic databases for peer-reviewed published literature. We categorize studies according to level of analysis (single and multilevel) and examine whether studies reveal a significant health impact of individual and area level social capital. We compare the study conclusions according to the country's degrees of economic egalitarianism. Regardless of study design, our findings indicate that a positive association (fixed effect) exists between social capital and better health irrespective of countries degree of egalitarianism. However, we find that the between-area variance (random effect) in health tends to be lower in more egalitarian countries than in less egalitarian countries. Our tentative conclusion is that an association between social capital and health at the individual level is robust with respect to the degree of egalitarianism within a country. Area level or contextual social capital may be less salient in egalitarian countries in explaining health differences across places. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]