Explore the vast range of titles available.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of global disease burden and rising health-care costs. Systematic reviews (SRs) rigorously evaluate evidence on health interventions' effects and guide personal, clinical, and policy decision-making. Health equity is the absence of avoidable and unfair differences in health between groups within a population. Assessing equity in lifestyle interventions for cardiovascular health is important due to persisting health inequities in CVD burden and access to interventions. We aim to explore how health equity considerations are addressed in Cochrane SRs of lifestyle interventions for cardiovascular health. This is a methodological review of Cochrane SRs of lifestyle interventions for cardiovascular health using the PROGRESS-Plus framework. PROGRESS-Plus stands for Place of residence, Race/ethnicity/culture/language, Occupation, Gender/sex, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status, and Social capital, while “Plus” stands for additional factors associated with discrimination and exclusion such as age, disability, and comorbidity. Using predefined selection criteria, two authors independently screened all Cochrane reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) between August 2017 and December 2022. PROGRESS-Plus factors in the SRs were sought in the Summary of Findings (SoF) table, Methods/Inclusion criteria, Methods/Subgroup analyses, Results/Included studies, Results/Subgroup analyses, and Discussion/Overall completeness and applicability of evidence. We included 36 SRs published by 10 Cochrane groups, addressing 11 health conditions with mostly dietary and exercise interventions. The most common PROGRESS-Plus factors assessed were gender/sex, age, and comorbidity. PROGRESS-Plus factors were most addressed in the inclusion criteria (64%), the discussion (75%), and the included studies (92%) sections of the SRs. Only 33% of SoF tables referenced PROGRESS-Plus. Sixty-nine percent of the included SRs planned for subgroup analyses across one or more PROGRESS-Plus factors, but only 43% of SRs conducted subgroup analyses, suggesting limited reporting of PROGRESS-Plus factors in primary studies. Equity factors are not sufficiently addressed in Cochrane reviews of lifestyle interventions for cardiovascular health. Low reporting of PROGRESS-Plus factors in implications for practice and research sections of Cochrane SRs limit equity-focused guidance for current clinical practice, public health interventions, and future research. [Display omitted] •A review of health equity in lifestyle interventions for cardiovascular health.•The most commonly reported PROGRESS-Plus factors were gender, age, and comorbidities. Socioeconomic status, social capital, and the 'plus' factors, were the least reported.•Studies have not explored the intersectionality of the PROGRESS-Plus factors.•Community-based interventions should integrate the PROGRESS-Plus framework into their design.

Background Screening in primary care for unmet individual social needs (e.g., housing instability, food insecurity, unemployment, social isolation) is critical to addressing their deleterious effects on patients’ health outcomes. To our knowledge, this is the first study to apply an implementation science framework to identify implementation factors and best practices for social needs screening and response. Methods Guided by the Health Equity Implementation Framework (HEIF), we collected qualitative data from clinicians and patients to evaluate barriers and facilitators to implementing the Protocol for Responding to and Assessing Patients’ Assets, Risks, and Experiences (PRAPARE), a standardized social needs screening and response protocol, in a federally qualified health center. Eligible patients who received the PRAPARE as a standard of care were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews. We also obtained front-line clinician perspectives in a semi-structured focus group. HEIF domains informed a directed content analysis. Results Patients and clinicians (i.e., case managers) reported implementation barriers and facilitators across multiple domains (e.g., clinical encounters, patient and provider factors, inner context, outer context, and societal influence). Implementation barriers included structural and policy level determinants related to resource availability, discrimination, and administrative burden. Facilitators included evidence-based clinical techniques for shared decision making (e.g., motivational interviewing), team-based staffing models, and beliefs related to alignment of the PRAPARE with patient-centered care. We found high levels of patient acceptability and opportunities for adaptation to increase equitable adoption and reach. Conclusion Our results provide practical insight into the implementation of the PRAPARE or similar social needs screening and response protocols in primary care at the individual encounter, organizational, community, and societal levels. Future research should focus on developing discrete implementation strategies to promote social needs screening and response, and associated multisector care coordination to improve health outcomes and equity for vulnerable and marginalized patient populations.

Background Leave No One Behind (LNOB) is a central, transformative promise of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Goals. To attain LNOB, systematic analysis of patterns and distributions of inequalities in coverage of health outcomes on a continuous basis at different program delivery layers is required to design tailored health interventions. We analysed the patterns of change and geographic distribution of inequalities in coverage of antenatal care and facility-based delivery in Uttar Pradesh (UP), India and developed a framework to guide health programmers to understand inequalities better, to accelerate progress by reaching those left behind. Methods Data from five-rounds of National Family Health Survey (1992–2021) and two-rounds of Community Behaviour Tracking Survey (2014–2018) is used. Education and wealth have been used as stratifiers. Three measures of inequality- mean difference from mean, slope index of inequality, and inequality pattern index are used to depict the state, district and sub-district level inequalities. Results UP observed a substantial reduction in the education-related inequality in ANC and facility-delivery during 1992–2021. The slope index of inequality declined from 65.3 [95%CI:60.0-70.6] to 9.3 [95%CI:7.8–10.8] for ANC and from 44.7 [95%CI:38.5–50.9] to 29.9 [95%CI:27.8–32.0] for facility-delivery during 1992–2021. The inequality pattern index showed that, with improved reach of interventions, many districts moved towards bottom inequality from top inequality for any ANC while fewer districts for facility-delivery. Even in districts with high coverage and low inequality, sub-district level(blocks) inequality persisted. Similarly, in blocks with high coverage and low inequality, Accredited Social Health Activist (ASHA) level inequality persisted. Interestingly, for the same ASHA area, the patterns of inequality differed for any ANC and facility delivery; in some districts, inequality direction changed based on the stratifier chosen. Conclusions The proposed health equity framework suggests that to achieve LNOB status, understanding inequality with the coverage status is important. If coverage is high and inequality persists, identify the program layer at which maximum inequality persists to identify the left behinds. Whereas, if coverage is poor, programs are required to improve coverage first. Findings also call for a systematic way of collecting and organizing granular data to understand inequality and identify the left-behinds.

Teaching equitable clinical practice is of critical importance, yet how best to do so remains unknown. Educators utilize implementation science frameworks to disseminate clinical evidence-based practices (EBP). The Health Equity Implementation Framework (HEIF) is one of these frameworks, and it delineates how health equity may be concomitantly assessed and addressed in planning the implementation of an EBP. The HEIF therefore lays a strong foundation to understand and explain barriers and facilitators to implementation through an equity lens, making it well-suited for use by medical educators. Three equity-focused frames of reference within the model include (1) the clinical encounter, (2) societal context, and (3) culturally relevant factors, herein referred to as domains. The HEIF provides a structure for prospective and retrospective assessment of how EBP are taught and ultimately incorporated into clinical practice by trainees, with specific attention to delivering equitable care. We present three examples of common topics in internal medicine, contextualized by the three equity domains of the HEIF. We additionally acknowledge the limitations of this framework as a research tool with complex features that may not be suitable for brief teaching in the clinical environment. We propose a 360-degree learner assessment to ensure implementation of this framework is successful. By encouraging trainees to explore the narrative experiences of their patients and examine their own implicit biases, the HEIF provides a structure to address gaps in knowledge about delivering equitable care.

Introduction: Health equity is essential to high-quality care, yet implementation in clinical settings remains challenging. The New York State AIDS Institute developed Health Equity Competencies to guide equity-focused care. Objective: This study examined barriers and enablers to implement these competencies using the Health Equity Implementation Framework (HEIF). Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews and focus groups with 33 participants, including physicians (39%), residents (24%), administrators (24%), medical students (18%), social workers (6%), and patients (12%). Thematic analysis, guided by the HEIF, organized findings across 5 domains: innovation, clinical encounters, patient/provider factors, inner and outer context, and societal influence. Results: Enablers included provider commitment, culturally responsive care, and community outreach. Barriers included limited institutional policies, insufficient bias training, inadequate resources for addressing social needs, and fragmented engagement. The most critical challenges emerged in the outer context (eg, structural barriers to care) and inner context (eg, organizational gaps). Conclusions: Aligning provider efforts with institutional support is essential. Structured training, equity-oriented policies, and sustained community partnerships are key to operationalizing equity in clinical practice.

Paul ArjantoDepartment of Educational Management, Pattimura University, Ambon, IndonesiaCorrespondence: Paul Arjanto, Department of Educational Management, Pattimura University, Ambon, Jl. Ir. Putuhena, Ambon, Maluku, Indonesia, Email [email protected]View the original paper by Prof. Dr. Jain and colleagues

Background Within Canada, many public health leaders have long identified the importance of improving the health of all Canadians especially those who face social and economic disadvantages. Future improvements in population health will be achieved by promoting health equity through action on the social determinants of health. Many Canadian documents, endorsed by government and public health leaders, describe commitments to improving overall health and promoting health equity. Public health has an important role to play in strengthening action on the social determinants and promoting health equity. Currently, public health services in British Columbia are being reorganized and there is a unique opportunity to study the application of an equity lens in public health and the contribution of public health to reducing health inequities. Where applicable, we have chosen mental health promotion, prevention of mental disorders and harms of substance use as exemplars within which to examine specific application of an equity lens. Methods/design This research protocol is informed by three theoretical perspectives: complex adaptive systems, critical social justice, and intersectionality. In this program of research, there are four inter-related research projects with an emphasis on both integrated and end of grant knowledge translation. Within an overarching collaborative and participatory approach to research, we use a multiple comparative case study research design and are incorporating multiple methods such as discourse analysis, situational analysis, social network analysis, concept mapping and grounded theory. Discussion An important aim of this work is to help ensure a strong public health system that supports public health providers to have the knowledge, skills, tools and resources to undertake the promotion of health equity. This research will contribute to increasing the effectiveness and contributions of public health in reducing unfair and inequitable differences in health among population groups. As a collaborative effort between public health practitioners/decision makers and university researchers, this research will provide important understanding and insights about the implementation of the changes in public health with a specific focus on health equity, the promotion of mental health and the prevention of harms of substance use.

Background Despite the wealth of frameworks on social determinants of health (SDOH), two current limitations include the relative superficial description of factors affecting health and a lack of focus on measuring health equity. The Health Equity Measurement Framework (HEMF) addresses these gaps by providing a more encompassing view of the multitude of SDOH and drivers of health service utilisation and by guiding quantitative analysis for public health surveillance and policy development. The objective of this paper is to present the HEMF, which was specifically designed to measure the direct and indirect effects of SDOH to support improved statistical modelling and measurement of health equity. Methods Based on a framework synthesis, the HEMF development involved initially integrating theoretical components from existing SDOH and health system utilisation frameworks. To further develop the framework, relevant publications on SDOH and health equity were identified through a literature review in major electronic databases. White and grey literatures were critically reviewed to identify strengths and gaps in the existing frameworks in order to inform the development of a unique health equity measurement framework. Finally, over a two-year period of consultation, scholars, health practitioners, and local policy influencers from municipal and provincial governments provided critical feedback on the framework regarding its components and causal relationships. Results This unified framework includes the socioeconomic, cultural, and political context, health policy context, social stratification, social location, material and social circumstances, environment, biological factors, health-related behaviours and beliefs, stress, quality of care, and healthcare utilisation. Alongside the HEMF’s self-exploratory diagram showing the causal pathways in-depth, a number of examples are provided to illustrate the framework’s usefulness in measuring and monitoring health equity as well as informing policy-making. Conclusions The HEMF highlights intervention areas to be influenced by strategic public policy for any organisation whose purview has an effect on health, including helping non-health sectors (such as education and labour) to better understand how their policies influence population health and perceive their role in health equity promotion. The HEMF recognises the complexity surrounding the SDOH and provides a clear, overarching direction for empirical work on health equity.

Background Researchers could benefit from methodological advancements to advance uptake of new treatments while also reducing healthcare disparities. A comprehensive determinants framework for healthcare disparity implementation challenges is essential to accurately understand an implementation problem and select implementation strategies. Methods We integrated and modified two conceptual frameworks—one from implementation science and one from healthcare disparities research to develop the Health Equity Implementation Framework. We applied the Health Equity Implementation Framework to a historical healthcare disparity challenge—hepatitis C virus (HCV) and its treatment among Black patients seeking care in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). A specific implementation assessment at the patient level was needed to understand any barriers to increasing uptake of HCV treatment, independent of cost. We conducted a preliminary study to assess how feasible it was for researchers to use the Health Equity Implementation Framework. We applied the framework to design the qualitative interview guide and interpret results. Using quantitative data to screen potential participants, this preliminary study consisted of semi-structured interviews with a purposively selected sample of Black, rural-dwelling, older adult VA patients ( N  = 12), living with HCV, from VA medical clinics in the Southern part of the USA. Results The Health Equity Implementation Framework was feasible for implementation researchers. Barriers and facilitators were identified at all levels including the patient, provider (recipients), patient-provider interaction (clinical encounter), characteristics of treatment (innovation), and healthcare system (inner and outer context). Some barriers reflected general implementation issues (e.g., poor care coordination after testing positive for HCV). Other barriers were related to healthcare disparities and likely unique to racial minority patients (e.g., testimonials from Black peers about racial discrimination at VA). We identified several facilitators, including patient enthusiasm to obtain treatment because of its high cure rates, and VA clinics that offset HCV stigma by protecting patient confidentiality. Conclusion The Health Equity Implementation Framework showcases one way to modify an implementation framework to better assess health equity determinants as well. Researchers may be able to optimize the scientific yield of research inquiries by identifying and addressing factors that promote or impede implementation of novel treatments in addition to eliminating healthcare disparities.

Policy Points A large body of scientific work examines the mechanisms through which social determinants of health (SDOH) shape health inequities. However, the nuances described in the literature are infrequently reflected in the applied frameworks that inform health policy and programming. We synthesize extant SDOH research into a heuristic framework that provides policymakers, practitioners, and researchers with a customizable template for conceptualizing and operationalizing key mechanisms that represent intervention opportunities for mitigating the impact of harmful SDOH. In light of scarce existing SDOH mitigation strategies, the framework addresses an important research‐to‐practice translation gap and missed opportunity for advancing health equity. Context The reduction of health inequities is a broad and interdisciplinary endeavor with implications for policy, research, and practice. Health inequities are most often understood as associated with the social determinants of health (SDOH). However, policy and programmatic frameworks for mitigation often rely on broad SDOH domains, without sufficient attention to the operating mechanisms, and effective SDOH mitigation strategies remain scarce. To expand the cadre of effective SDOH mitigation strategies, a practical, heuristic framework for policymakers, practitioners, and researchers is needed that serves as a roadmap for conceptualizing and targeting the key mechanisms of SDOH influence. Methods We conduct a critical review of the extant conceptual and empirical SDOH literature to identify unifying principles of SDOH mechanisms and to synthesize an integrated framework for conceptualizing such mechanisms. Findings We highlight eight unifying principles of SDOH mechanisms that emerge from landmark SDOH research. Building on these principles, we introduce and apply a conceptual model that synthesizes key SDOH mechanisms into one organizing, heuristic framework that provides policymakers, practitioners, and researchers with a customizable template for conceptualizing and operationalizing the key SDOH mechanisms that represent intervention opportunities to maximize potential impact for mitigating a given health inequity. Conclusions Our synthesis of the extant SDOH research into a heuristic framework addresses a scarcity of peer‐reviewed organizing frameworks of SDOH mechanisms designed to inform practice. The framework represents a practical tool to facilitate the translation of scholarly SDOH work into evidence‐based and targeted policy and programming. Such tools designed to close the research‐to‐practice translation gap for effective SDOH mitigation are sorely needed, given that health inequities in the United States and in many other parts of the world have widened over the past two decades.