Search

Background: Inequitable access to primary health care (PHC) remains a problem for most western countries. Failure to scale up effective interventions has been due, in part, to a failure to share the logic and essential elements of successful programs. The aim of this paper is to describe what we learned about improving access to PHC for vulnerable groups across multiple sites through use of a common theory-based program logic model and a common evaluation approach. This was the IMPACT initiative. Methods: IMPACT's evaluation used a mixed methods design with longitudinal (pre and post) analysis of six interventions. The analysis for this paper included four of the six sites that met study criteria. These sites were located in Canada (Alberta, Quebec and Ontario) and Australia (New South Wales). Using the overarching logic model, unexpected findings were reviewed, and alternative explanations were considered to understand how the mechanisms of each intervention may have contributed to results. Results: Each site addressed their local access problem with different strategies and from different starting points. All sites observed changes in patient abilities to access PHC and provider access capabilities. The combination of intended and observed consequences for consumers and providers was different at each site, but all sites achieved change in both consumer ability and provider capability, even in interventions where there was no activity targeting provider behaviors. Discussion: The model helped to identify, explore and synthesize intended and unintended consequences of four interventions that appeared to have more differences than similarities. Similar outcomes for different interventions and multiple impacts of each intervention on abilities were observed, implying complex causal pathways. Conclusions: All the interventions were a low-cost incremental attempt to address unmet health care needs of vulnerable populations. Change is possible; sustaining change may be more challenging. Access to PHC requires attention to both patient abilities and provider characteristics. The logic model proved to be a valuable heuristic tool for defining the objectives of the interventions, evaluating their impacts, and learning from the comparison of 'cases'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Racism in the healthcare system has become a burgeoning focus in health policy-making and research. Existing research has shown both interpersonal and structural forms of racism limiting access to quality healthcare for racialised healthcare users. Nevertheless, little is known about the specifics of racism in the inpatient sector, specifically hospitals and rehabilitation facilities. The aim of this scoping review is therefore to map the evidence on racial discrimination experienced by people receiving treatment in inpatient settings (hospitals and rehabilitation facilities) or their caregivers in high-income countries, focusing specifically on whether intersectional axes of discrimination have been taken into account when describing these experiences. Methods: Based on the conceptual framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley, this scoping review surveyed existing research on racism and racial discrimination in inpatient care in high-income countries published between 2013 and 2023. The software Rayyan was used to support the screening process while MAXQDA was used for thematic coding. Results: Forty-seven articles were included in this review. Specifics of the inpatient sector included different hospitalisation, admission and referral rates within and across hospitals; the threat of racial discrimination from other healthcare users; and the spatial segregation of healthcare users according to ethnic, religious or racialised criteria. While most articles described some interactions between race and other social categories in the sample composition, the framework of intersectionality was rarely considered explicitly during analysis. Discussion: While the USA continue to predominate in discussions, other high-income countries including Canada, Australia and the UK also examine racism in their own healthcare systems. Absent from the literature are studies from a wider range of European countries as well as of racialised and disadvantaged groups other than refugees or recent immigrants. Research in this area would also benefit from an engagement with approaches to intersectionality in public health to produce a more nuanced understanding of the interactions of racism with other axes of discrimination. As inpatient care exhibits a range of specific structures, future research and policy-making ought to consider these specifics to develop targeted interventions, including training for non-clinical staff and robust, transparent and accessible complaint procedures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Perceived financial security impacts physical, mental, and social health and overall wellbeing at community and population levels. Public health action on this dynamic is even more critical now that the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated financial strain and reduced financial wellbeing. Yet, public health literature on this topic is limited. Initiatives targeting financial strain and financial wellbeing and their deterministic effects on equity in health and living conditions are missing. Our research-practice collaborative project addresses this gap in knowledge and intervention through an action-oriented public health framework for initiatives targeting financial strain and wellbeing. Methods: The Framework was developed using a multi-step methodology that involved review of theoretical and empirical evidence alongside input from a panel of experts from Australia and Canada. In an integrated knowledge translation approach, academics (n = 14) and a diverse group of experts from government and non-profit sectors (n = 22) were engaged throughout the project via workshops, one-on-one dialogues, and questionnaires. Results: The validated Framework provides organizations and governments with guidance for the design, implementation, and assessment of diverse financial wellbeing- and financial strain-related initiatives. It presents 17 priority actionable areas (i.e., entry points for action) likely to have long-lasting, positive effects on people's financial circumstances, contributing to improved financial wellbeing and health. The 17 entry points relate to five domains: Government (All Levels), Organizational & Political Culture, Socioeconomic & Political Context, Social & Cultural Circumstances, and Life Circumstances. Conclusions: The Framework reveals the intersectionality of root causes and consequences of financial strain and poor financial wellbeing, while also reinforcing the need for tailored actions to promote socioeconomic and health equity for all people. The dynamic, systemic interplay of the entry points illustrated in the Framework suggest opportunities for multi-sectoral, collaborative action across government and organizations towards systems change and the prevention of unintended negative impacts of initiatives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]