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 , Karen Bartholomew , Anna Maxwell , Erin Chambers , Katrina Poppe , Robert N. Doughty , 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.