Search

Objective The primary aim of this paper is to accelerate the number of randomized experimental studies of the reliability and validity in-home tele-neuropsychological testing (tele-np-t). Method We conducted a critical review of the tele-neuropsychology literature. We discuss this research in the context of the United States' public and private healthcare payer systems, including the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) coding system's telehealth lists, and existing disparities in healthcare access. Results The number of tele-np publications has been stagnant since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. There are less published experimental studies of tele-neuropsychology (tele-np), and particularly in-home tele-np-t, than other tele-np publications. There is strong foundational evidence of the acceptability, feasibility, and reliability of tele-np-t, but relatively few studies of the reliability and validity of in-home tele-np-t using randomization methodology. Conclusions More studies of the reliability and validity of in-home tele-np-t using randomization methodology are necessary to support inclusion of tele-np-t codes on the CMS and CPT telehealth lists, and subsequently, the integration and delivery of in-home tele-np-t services across providers and institutions. These actions are needed to maintain equitable reimbursement of in-home tele-np-t services and address the widespread disparities in healthcare access. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The state of evidence-based transgender healthcare in the United States has been put at risk by the spread of misinformation harmful to transgender people. Health science librarians can alleviate the spread of misinformation by identifying and analyzing its flow through systems that affect access to healthcare. Discussion: The author developed the theory of the Misinformation - Legislation Pipeline by studying the flow of antitransgender misinformation from online echo chambers through a peer-reviewed article and into policy enacted to ban medical treatments for transgender people in the state of Florida. The analysis is precluded with a literature review of currently accepted best practices in transgender healthcare, after which, the author analyzes the key report leveraged by Florida's Department of Health in its ban. A critical analysis of the report is followed by a secondary analysis of the key peer-reviewed article upon which the Florida Medicaid authors relied to make the decision. The paper culminates with a summation of the trajectory of anti-transgender misinformation. Conclusion: Misinformation plays a key role in producing legislation harmful to transgender people. Health science librarians have a role to play in identifying misinformation as it flows through the Misinformation - Legislation Pipeline and enacting key practices to identify, analyze, and oppose the spread of harmful misinformation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The differential impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic on communities of color in the United States along with the civil unrest taking place in 2020 in response to the killing of unarmed Black men and women by the police have increased awareness of the structural racism pervading US society. These developments have reraised the issue of reparations for Black Americans, usually proposed in the context of providing financial compensation for the injustices of slavery to the descendants of those who were enslaved. This paper will discuss the systematic racial inequality and structural racism in US society that have significantly disadvantaged racial and ethnic minorities while giving advantages to white Americans, which most recently have resulted in significantly higher mortality and morbidity among Black, Hispanic, and Native Americans during the pandemic. The paper will conceptualize reparations within the context of theories of reparative justice. It will also consider whether reparations are owed, and if so, by whom, to whom, and in what form. The final section will offer a proposal for collective reparations to the Black community and other people of color. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Socio-economic and geographical inequalities in breast cancer mortality have been widely described in European countries and the United States. To investigate the combined effects of geographic access and socio-economic characteristics on breast cancer outcomes, a systematic review was conducted exploring the relationships between: (i) geographic access to healthcare facilities (oncology services, mammography screening), defined as travel time and/or travel distance; (ii) breast cancer-related outcomes (mammography screening, stage of cancer at diagnosis, type of treatment and rate of mortality); (iii) socioeconomic status (SES) at individuals and residential context levels. In total, n = 25 studies (29 relationships tested) were included in our systematic review. The four main results are: The statistical significance of the relationship between geographic access and breast cancer-related outcomes is heterogeneous: 15 were identified as significant and 14 as non-significant. Women with better geographic access to healthcare facilities had a statistically significant fewer mastectomy (n = 4/6) than women with poorer geographic access. The relationship with the stage of the cancer is more balanced (n = 8/17) and the relationship with cancer screening rate is not observed (n = 1/4). The type of measures of geographic access (distance, time or geographical capacity) does not seem to have any influence on the results. For example, studies which compared two different measures (travel distance and travel time) of geographic access obtained similar results. The relationship between SES characteristics and breast cancer-related outcomes is significant for several variables: at individual level, age and health insurance status; at contextual level, poverty rate and deprivation index. Of the 25 papers included in the review, the large majority (n = 24) tested the independent effect of geographic access. Only one study explored the combined effect of geographic access to breast cancer facilities and SES characteristics by developing stratified models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Innovative interventions are needed to address the growing burden of breast cancer globally, especially among vulnerable patient populations. Given the success of Community Health Workers (CHWs) in addressing communicable diseases and non-communicable diseases, this scoping review will investigate the roles and impacts of CHWs in breast cancer screening programs. This paper also seeks to determine the effectiveness and feasibility of these programs, with particular attention paid to differences between CHW-led interventions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and high-income countries (HICs).Methods: A scoping review was performed using six databases with dates ranging from 1978 to 2019. Comprehensive definitions and search terms were established for 'Community Health Workers' and 'breast cancer screening', and studies were extracted using the World Bank definition of LMIC. Screening and data extraction were protocolized using multiple independent reviewers. Chi-square test of independence was used for statistical analysis of the incidence of themes in HICs and LMICs.Results: Of the 1,551 papers screened, 33 were included based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Study locations included the United States (n=27), Bangladesh (n=1), Peru (n=1), Malawi (n=2), Rwanda (n=1), and South Africa (n=1). Three primary roles for CHWs in breast cancer screening were identified: education (n=30), direct assistance or performance of breast cancer screening (n=7), and navigational services (n=6). In these roles, CHWs improved rates of breast cancer screening (n=23) and overall community member knowledge (n=21). Two studies performed cost-analyses of CHW-led interventions.Conclusion: This review extends our understanding of CHW effectiveness to breast cancer screening. It illustrates how CHW involvement in screening programs can have a significant impact in LMICs and HICs, and highlights the three CHW roles of education, direct performance of screening, and navigational services that emerge as useful pillars around which governments and NGOs can design effective programs in this area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID‐19 pandemic has had a disproportionate impact on the health of Black Americans, Latinx or Hispanic Americans, and American Indians. These disparities are deeply unjust, in part, because they are the causal result of racism at both the interpersonal and structural levels. This paper argues, however, that establishing a causal connection between racism and health disparities is not the only way to explain the injustice of these disparities. The COVID‐19 health disparities are arguably unjust because health equity is a "free‐standing" demand of justice, an obligation of reparative justice, a remedy to structural injustice, and part of dismantling pernicious racial concepts. Identifying multiple accounts of injustice may lower the evidentiary bar for our normative claims and help us to identify alternative policy pathways for ending health inequity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: People living in rural and remote communities commonly experience significant health disadvantages. Geographical barriers and reduced specialist and generalist services impact access to care when compared with metropolitan context. Innovative models of care have been developed for people living with chronic diseases in rural areas with the goal of overcoming these inequities. The aim of this paper was to describe the characteristics and outcomes of studies investigating innovative models of care for people living with chronic disease in rural areas of developed countries where a metropolitan comparator was included.Methods: An integrative systematic review was undertaken. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) method was used to understand the empirical and theoretical data on clinical outcomes for people living with chronic disease in rural compared with metropolitan contexts and their models of care in Australia, New Zealand, United States, Canada and the United Kingdom.Results: Literature searching revealed 620 articles published in English between 1st January 2000 and 31st March 2019. One hundred sixty were included in the review including 68 from the United States, 59 from Australia and New Zealand (5), 21 from Canada and 11 from the United Kingdom and Ireland. 53% (84) focused on cardiovascular disease; 27% (43) diabetes mellitus; 8% (12) chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; and 13% (27) chronic kidney disease. Mortality was only reported in 10% (16) of studies and only 18% (29) reported data on Indigenous populations.Conclusions: This integrated review reveals that the published literature on common chronic health issues pertaining to rural and remote populations is largely descriptive. Only a small number of publications focus on mortality and comparative health outcomes from health care models in both urban and non-urban populations. Innovative service models and telehealth are together well represented in the published literature but data on health outcomes is relatively sparse. There is significant scope for further directly comparative studies detailing the effect of service delivery models on the health outcomes of urban and rural populations. We believe that such data would further knowledge in this field and help to break the deadly synergy between increased rurality and poorer outcomes for people with chronic disease. [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]