Search

BackgroundBottom-up approaches to disparity reduction present a departure from traditional service models where health services are traditionally delivered top-down. Raphael, a novel bottom-up social incubator, was developed in a disadvantaged region with the aim of ‘hatching’ innovative health improvement interventions through academia-community partnership.MethodsCommunity organizations were invited to submit proposals for incubation. Selection was made using the criteria of innovation, population neediness and potential for health impact and sustainability. Raphael partnered with organizations to pilot and evaluate their intervention with $5000 seed-funding. The evaluation was guided by the conceptual framework of technological incubators. Outcomes and sustainability were ascertained through qualitative and quantitative analysis of records and interviews at 12 months and 3–5 years, and the Community Impact of Research Oriented Partnerships (CIROP) questionnaire was administered to community partners.ResultsNinety proposals were submitted between 2013 and 2015 principally from non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Thirteen interventions were selected for ‘incubation’. Twelve successfully ‘hatched’: three demonstrated sustainability with extension locally or nationally through acquiring external competitive funding; six continued to have influence within their organizations; three failed to continue beyond the pilot. Benefits to the organisations included acquisition of skills including advocacy, teaching and health promotion, evaluation skills and ability to utilize acquired knowledge for implementation. CIROP demonstrated that individuals’ research skills were reported to improve (mean ± sd) 4.80 ± 2.49 along with confidence in being able to use knowledge acquired in everyday practice (5.50 ± 1.38) and new connections were facilitated (5.33 ± 2.25).ConclusionsRaphael, devised as a ‘social incubator’, succeeded in nurturing novel ideas engendered by community organizations that aimed to impact on health disparities. Judging by success rates of technological incubators its goals were realized to a considerable degree.

The COVID-19 is disproportionally affecting the poor, minorities and a broad range of vulnerable populations, due to its inequitable spread in areas of dense population and limited mitigation capacity due to high prevalence of chronic conditions or poor access to high quality public health and medical care. Moreover, the collateral effects of the pandemic due to the global economic downturn, and social isolation and movement restriction measures, are unequally affecting those in the lowest power strata of societies. To address the challenges to health equity and describe some of the approaches taken by governments and local organizations, we have compiled 13 country case studies from various regions around the world: China, Brazil, Thailand, Sub Saharan Africa, Nicaragua, Armenia, India, Guatemala, United States of America (USA), Israel, Australia, Colombia, and Belgium. This compilation is by no-means representative or all inclusive, and we encourage researchers to continue advancing global knowledge on COVID-19 health equity related issues, through rigorous research and generation of a strong evidence base of new empirical studies in this field.

Medical education needs to continuously evolve to accommodate and address new challenges and advances in medicine. While medical students tend to embrace new technologies and treatments, they are often less enthusiastic about newer concepts of health, particularly if they demand the acquisition of skills that they believe are less relevant. A classic example relates to social determinants and their impact on individuals’ health and appreciating how the resultant health inequities need to be addressed clinically and at the systems level. The issue of health inequity is so central that there have been global calls for action to ensure that health professionals acquire the necessary skills. Experiential learning can be a key to ensuring that students appreciate the magnitude of the problem and gain the skills they require.

BACKGROUND: Different conceptual frameworks guide how an organization can change its policies and practices to make care and outcomes more equitable for patients, and how the organization itself can become more equitable. Nonetheless, healthcare organizations often struggle with implementing these frameworks. OBJECTIVE: To assess what guidance frameworks for health equity provide for organizations implementing interventions to make care and outcomes more equitable. STUDY DESIGN: Fourteen inequity frameworks from scoping literature review 2000–2017 that provided models for improving disparities in quality of care or outcomes were assessed. We analyzed how frameworks addressed key implementation factors: (1) outer and inner organizational contexts; (2) process of translating and implementing equity interventions throughout organizations; (3) organizational and patient outcomes; and (4) sustainability of change over time. PARTICIPANTS: We conducted member check interviews with framework authors to verify our assessments. KEY RESULTS: Frameworks stressed assessing the organization’s outer context, such as population served, for tailoring change strategies. Inner context, such as existing organizational culture or readiness for change, was often not addressed. Most frameworks did not provide guidance on translation of equity across multiple organizational departments and levels. Recommended evaluation metrics focused mainly on patient outcomes, leaving organizational measures unassessed. Sustainability was not addressed by most frameworks. CONCLUSIONS: Existing equity intervention frameworks often lack specific guidance for implementing organizational change. Future frameworks should assess inner organizational context to guide translation of programs across different organizational departments and levels and provide specific guidelines on institutionalization and sustainability of interventions.

Background An organization-wide inequity-reduction quality improvement (QI) initiative was implemented in primary care clinics serving disadvantaged Arab and Jewish populations. Using the Chronic Care Model (CCM), this study investigated the types of interventions associated with success in inequity reduction. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 80 staff members from 26 target clinics, and information about intervention types was coded by CCM and clinical domains (e.g. diabetes, hypertension and lipid control; performance of mammography tests). Relationships between type and number of interventions implemented and inequity reduction were assessed. Results Target clinics implemented 454 different interventions, on average 17.5 interventions per clinic. Interventions focused on Decision support and Community linkages were positively correlated with improvement in the composite quality score (P < 0.05). Conversely, focusing on a specific clinical domain was not correlated with a higher quality score. Conclusions Focusing on training team members in selected QI topics and/or tailoring interventions to meet community needs was key to the interventions' success. Such findings, especially in light of the lack of association between QI and a focus on a specific clinical domain, support other calls for adopting a systems approach to achieving wide-scale inequity reduction.

The role of medical schools is in a process of change. The World Health Organization has declared that they can no longer be ivory towers whose primary focus is the production of specialist physicians and cutting edge laboratory research. They must also be socially accountable and direct their activities towards meeting the priority health concerns of the areas they serve. The agenda must be set in partnership with stakeholders including governments, health care organisations and the public.\ud \ud The concept of social accountability has particular resonance for the Bar Ilan Faculty of Medicine in the Galilee, Israel’s newest medical school, which was established with a purpose of reducing health inequities in the Region. As a way of exploring and understanding the issues, discussions were held with international experts in the field who visited the Galilee. A symposium involving representatives from other medical schools in Israel was also held to extend the discourse. Deliberations that took place are reported here.\ud \ud The meaning of social accountability was discussed, and how it could be achieved. Three forms of action were the principal foci – augmentation of the medical curriculum, direct action through community engagement and political advocacy. A platform was set for taking the social accountability agenda forward, with the hope that it will impact on health inequalities in Israel and contribute to discussions elsewhere.

Background Recent healthcare literature points to the need to investigate how to achieve inequity reduction. We studied the implementation of an organizational-wide inequity reduction intervention in Israel’s largest healthcare provider and insurer, Clalit Health Services during 20092012. The intervention focused on reducing health and healthcare gaps between 55 target clinics (major clinics serving predominantly minority and socioeconomically deprived populations) and all other 126 major primary care clinics. The intervention focused on inequity reduction in a composite weighted score of seven indicators: attainment of diabetes, blood pressure, and lipid control; lack of anemia in infants; and performance of mammography, occult blood tests, and influenza vaccinations.