What works to reduce socioeconomic inequalities in hospitalisations and readmissions? Systematic review of the equity impacts of population-level, health service and integrative interventions.

BMJ public health Pub Date : 2025-09-23 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1136/bmjph-2025-002595
Sarah Sowden, Behrouz Nezafat Maldonado, Fiona Beyer, William Bell, Mark Lambert, Richard Thomson, Richard Cookson, Clare Bambra
{"title":"What works to reduce socioeconomic inequalities in hospitalisations and readmissions? Systematic review of the equity impacts of population-level, health service and integrative interventions.","authors":"Sarah Sowden, Behrouz Nezafat Maldonado, Fiona Beyer, William Bell, Mark Lambert, Richard Thomson, Richard Cookson, Clare Bambra","doi":"10.1136/bmjph-2025-002595","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Inequalities exist in hospitalisation rates, which are undesirable and costly for health systems; with higher rates in populations with lower levels of income, education or residing in socioeconomically marginalised neighbourhoods where ill-health is more prevalent and preventive care is more limited.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To understand which interventions reduce, maintain or increase socioeconomic inequalities in hospitalisations or readmissions to aid efforts of policymakers and practitioners working to improve health equity and reduce hospital pressures.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Systematic review.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>Intervention studies in any Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) country, involving individuals of any age, published in any language which reported the differential impact across socioeconomic group (any classification) for three categories of intervention (population-level, health service or integrative interventions) on hospitalisation or readmission outcomes (all cause or condition specific).</p><p><strong>Data extraction and synthesis: </strong>An electronic search of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL and Web of Knowledge was conducted covering 24 years (from 1 January 2000 to 1 April 2024), supplemented with full citation searches of included studies, website searches and expert consultation. Risk of bias was assessed using the EHPP tool, direction of effect classified and narrative synthesis conducted.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 25 618 records screened, 36 studies met the inclusion criteria, conducted in eight countries with 42% of these published in the past 5 years. Studies employed a range of study designs and 88% were rated as either moderate or strong quality. A range of equity impacts of interventions on hospitalisations and readmissions were observed; 6 interventions increased inequalities, 7 maintained, 10 had mixed or inconclusive impacts, and 13 studies reported effective interventions for reducing inequalities. Interventions successful at reducing inequalities were those implemented and enforced across entire populations and systems and supportive interventions tailored to the varied needs and contexts of people from different socioeconomic groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Socioeconomic disadvantage was variously measured making comparison of equity impacts across studies complex. Policymakers and practitioners cannot assume that interventions implemented to reduce hospitalisations or readmissions will necessarily reduce prevailing and costly healthcare inequalities; it is imperative that the equity impacts of interventions are consistently monitored. To improve equity of hospital outcomes, investment in population health and integrative activity addressing the social determinants of health, alongside health service interventions, is required.</p><p><strong>Prospero registration number: </strong>CRD42019153666.</p>","PeriodicalId":101362,"journal":{"name":"BMJ public health","volume":"3 2","pages":"e002595"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12458884/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ public health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjph-2025-002595","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Inequalities exist in hospitalisation rates, which are undesirable and costly for health systems; with higher rates in populations with lower levels of income, education or residing in socioeconomically marginalised neighbourhoods where ill-health is more prevalent and preventive care is more limited.

Objectives: To understand which interventions reduce, maintain or increase socioeconomic inequalities in hospitalisations or readmissions to aid efforts of policymakers and practitioners working to improve health equity and reduce hospital pressures.

Design: Systematic review.

Eligibility criteria: Intervention studies in any Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) country, involving individuals of any age, published in any language which reported the differential impact across socioeconomic group (any classification) for three categories of intervention (population-level, health service or integrative interventions) on hospitalisation or readmission outcomes (all cause or condition specific).

Data extraction and synthesis: An electronic search of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL and Web of Knowledge was conducted covering 24 years (from 1 January 2000 to 1 April 2024), supplemented with full citation searches of included studies, website searches and expert consultation. Risk of bias was assessed using the EHPP tool, direction of effect classified and narrative synthesis conducted.

Results: From 25 618 records screened, 36 studies met the inclusion criteria, conducted in eight countries with 42% of these published in the past 5 years. Studies employed a range of study designs and 88% were rated as either moderate or strong quality. A range of equity impacts of interventions on hospitalisations and readmissions were observed; 6 interventions increased inequalities, 7 maintained, 10 had mixed or inconclusive impacts, and 13 studies reported effective interventions for reducing inequalities. Interventions successful at reducing inequalities were those implemented and enforced across entire populations and systems and supportive interventions tailored to the varied needs and contexts of people from different socioeconomic groups.

Conclusions: Socioeconomic disadvantage was variously measured making comparison of equity impacts across studies complex. Policymakers and practitioners cannot assume that interventions implemented to reduce hospitalisations or readmissions will necessarily reduce prevailing and costly healthcare inequalities; it is imperative that the equity impacts of interventions are consistently monitored. To improve equity of hospital outcomes, investment in population health and integrative activity addressing the social determinants of health, alongside health service interventions, is required.

Prospero registration number: CRD42019153666.

怎样才能减少住院和再入院中的社会经济不平等?对人口水平、卫生服务和综合干预措施的公平影响进行系统审查。
住院率方面存在不平等,这对卫生系统来说是不可取的,而且代价高昂;在收入、教育水平较低或居住在社会经济边缘化社区的人口中,发病率较高,这些社区的健康状况较差,预防性保健较有限。目的:了解哪些干预措施减少、维持或增加住院或再入院的社会经济不平等,以帮助政策制定者和从业人员努力改善卫生公平和减少医院压力。设计:系统回顾。资格标准:在任何经济合作与发展组织(OECD)国家进行的干预研究,涉及任何年龄的个人,以任何语言发表,报告了三种干预(人口水平、卫生服务或综合干预)对住院或再入院结果(所有原因或具体情况)的不同社会经济群体(任何分类)的差异影响。数据提取与合成:对MEDLINE、Embase、CINAHL、Cochrane CENTRAL和Web of Knowledge进行了24年(2000年1月1日至2024年4月1日)的电子检索,并辅以纳入研究的全引文检索、网站检索和专家咨询。采用EHPP工具评估偏倚风险,进行效应方向分类和叙事综合。结果:在筛选的25618份记录中,有36项研究符合纳入标准,这些研究在8个国家进行,其中42%是在过去5年发表的。研究采用了一系列的研究设计,88%被评为中等或高质量。观察到干预措施对住院和再入院的一系列公平影响;6项干预措施增加了不平等,7项维持了不平等,10项具有混合或不确定的影响,13项研究报告了减少不平等的有效干预措施。在减少不平等方面取得成功的干预措施是在整个人口和系统中实施和执行的干预措施,以及针对不同社会经济群体的不同需求和情况量身定制的支持性干预措施。结论:社会经济劣势的测量方法多种多样,使得各研究间公平影响的比较变得复杂。政策制定者和从业人员不能假设,为减少住院或再入院而实施的干预措施必然会减少普遍存在的、代价高昂的医疗不平等;必须持续监测干预措施的公平影响。为了改善医院结果的公平性,需要对人口健康进行投资,并开展综合活动,处理健康的社会决定因素,同时采取卫生服务干预措施。普洛斯彼罗注册号:CRD42019153666。
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