A scoping review of health co-benefit tests in the setting of a screening or health programme: Limited data to inform their potential use to address inequities

Tayla Schaapveld , Karen Bartholomew , Anna Maxwell , Erin Chambers , Katrina Poppe , Robert N. Doughty , Tracy Murphy
{"title":"A scoping review of health co-benefit tests in the setting of a screening or health programme: Limited data to inform their potential use to address inequities","authors":"Tayla Schaapveld ,&nbsp;Karen Bartholomew ,&nbsp;Anna Maxwell ,&nbsp;Erin Chambers ,&nbsp;Katrina Poppe ,&nbsp;Robert N. Doughty ,&nbsp;Tracy Murphy","doi":"10.1016/j.ssmhs.2025.100084","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>The aim of this scoping review is to assess the extent, range and nature of health co-benefit tests and their application to address inequities in a screening or other health programme setting and to inform their potential use for a AAA screening programme in Aotearoa New Zealand.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL and AMED) were searched to find relevant literature published between August 2009 to August 2024. This was supplemented with studies obtained through examination of reference lists, grey literature, and hand searching of key journals. Articles meeting the inclusion criteria were reviewed for relevance, with key data extracted into a coding system.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>In total, twenty-four papers were included in our review. Although the addition of co-benefit tests to existing programmes was seen as beneficial by both programme designers and participants, to ensure success in addressing inequities there were factors raised that need to be taken into consideration, including improved co-ordination between specialties, and ensuring pathways are put in place to follow-up participants following their tests.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>While the concept of including co-benefit tests to existing health programmes to address inequities is widely supported, there remain notable gaps in the literature which warrant further investigation. Findings from this review have highlighted the need for more research to be undertaken, with a focus on Indigenous health, inequities and specific settings such as rural health. Future studies should include views of both participants and staff members and not only focus on the acceptance and feasibility of adding co-benefit tests, but also explore the benefits, challenges and sustainability after they have been implemented in a health programme.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":101183,"journal":{"name":"SSM - Health Systems","volume":"5 ","pages":"Article 100084"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SSM - Health Systems","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949856225000364","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

The aim of this scoping review is to assess the extent, range and nature of health co-benefit tests and their application to address inequities in a screening or other health programme setting and to inform their potential use for a AAA screening programme in Aotearoa New Zealand.

Methods

Electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL and AMED) were searched to find relevant literature published between August 2009 to August 2024. This was supplemented with studies obtained through examination of reference lists, grey literature, and hand searching of key journals. Articles meeting the inclusion criteria were reviewed for relevance, with key data extracted into a coding system.

Results

In total, twenty-four papers were included in our review. Although the addition of co-benefit tests to existing programmes was seen as beneficial by both programme designers and participants, to ensure success in addressing inequities there were factors raised that need to be taken into consideration, including improved co-ordination between specialties, and ensuring pathways are put in place to follow-up participants following their tests.

Conclusions

While the concept of including co-benefit tests to existing health programmes to address inequities is widely supported, there remain notable gaps in the literature which warrant further investigation. Findings from this review have highlighted the need for more research to be undertaken, with a focus on Indigenous health, inequities and specific settings such as rural health. Future studies should include views of both participants and staff members and not only focus on the acceptance and feasibility of adding co-benefit tests, but also explore the benefits, challenges and sustainability after they have been implemented in a health programme.
在筛查或保健方案的背景下对健康共同受益试验进行范围审查:数据有限,无法说明其在解决不公平问题方面的潜在用途
目的:本范围审查的目的是评估健康共益试验的程度、范围和性质及其应用,以解决筛查或其他健康方案设置中的不公平问题,并告知其在新西兰Aotearoa AAA筛查方案中的潜在用途。方法检索2009年8月~ 2024年8月在MEDLINE、CINAHL和AMED电子数据库发表的相关文献。通过查阅参考文献、灰色文献和手工检索关键期刊获得的研究作为补充。对符合纳入标准的文章进行相关性审查,并将关键数据提取到编码系统中。结果共纳入24篇文献。虽然方案设计者和参与者都认为在现有方案中增加共同受益测试是有益的,但为了确保成功解决不平等问题,提出了一些需要考虑的因素,包括改进各专业之间的协调,并确保在参与者进行测试后为其后续工作提供途径。虽然将共同效益测试纳入现有卫生规划以解决不平等问题的概念得到广泛支持,但文献中仍存在值得进一步调查的明显空白。这次审查的结果强调需要进行更多的研究,重点是土著健康、不平等和农村健康等具体环境。今后的研究应包括参与者和工作人员的意见,不仅注重增加共同惠益测试的接受程度和可行性,而且还应探讨在保健方案中实施这些测试后的惠益、挑战和可持续性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信