Social and policy interventions to reduce hospital admissions among socioeconomically disadvantaged groups in OECD countries with universal health care: a systematic review.
Behrouz Nezafat Maldonado, William Bell, Jasmine Olivera, Fiona Beyer, Mark Lambert, Richard Thomson, Richard Cookson, Clare Bambra, Sarah Sowden
{"title":"Social and policy interventions to reduce hospital admissions among socioeconomically disadvantaged groups in OECD countries with universal health care: a systematic review.","authors":"Behrouz Nezafat Maldonado, William Bell, Jasmine Olivera, Fiona Beyer, Mark Lambert, Richard Thomson, Richard Cookson, Clare Bambra, Sarah Sowden","doi":"10.1136/bmjph-2025-002592","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Socioeconomic disadvantage increases the risk of acute illnesses and injuries requiring hospital admission, some of which are avoidable. This systematic review aimed to identify the impact of interventions on hospital admissions in socioeconomically disadvantaged populations and identify knowledge gaps.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Systematic review (PROSPERO, CRD42019153666).</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>We searched MEDLINE (OVID), Embase (OVID), CINAHL (EBSCO), Cochrane CENTRAL (Wiley) and the Web of Knowledge platforms.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>Studies published between 1 January 2000 and 1 April 2024. We included quantitative studies that included a socioeconomically disadvantaged population, conducted studies in countries members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) with universal healthcare and reported on hospital admission or readmissions.</p><p><strong>Data extraction and synthesis: </strong>We assessed study quality using the Effective Public Health Practice Project tool. We summarised studies using a narrative synthesis approach and present findings using vote counting as a measure of effect.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 20 studies of interventions targeted towards socioeconomically disadvantaged populations. Their impacts on hospitalisations of interventions, grouped under three domains-(1) population level health and social policy, (2) health and care service-based interventions and (3) integrative interventions-were mixed. Through vote counting, we found some evidence that social policy interventions targeting socioeconomically disadvantaged groups have an important impact on hospitalisations, especially those focused on improved housing and income.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While ongoing efforts to ensure that healthcare interventions improve the equity of access, experience and outcome are warranted, social policy interventions that address the wider determinants of health, such as housing, income and education, hold promise for controlling rates of hospital admissions in socioeconomically disadvantaged groups. This underscores the value of multi-sectoral action to reduce inequalities. Future studies should explore the long-term outcomes of interventions, particularly integrative ones, which may bring benefits in the long term but not so much in the short term.</p><p><strong>Prospero registration number: </strong>CRD42019153666.</p>","PeriodicalId":101362,"journal":{"name":"BMJ public health","volume":"3 2","pages":"e002592"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12458780/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ public health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjph-2025-002592","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
Objectives: Socioeconomic disadvantage increases the risk of acute illnesses and injuries requiring hospital admission, some of which are avoidable. This systematic review aimed to identify the impact of interventions on hospital admissions in socioeconomically disadvantaged populations and identify knowledge gaps.
Data sources: We searched MEDLINE (OVID), Embase (OVID), CINAHL (EBSCO), Cochrane CENTRAL (Wiley) and the Web of Knowledge platforms.
Eligibility criteria: Studies published between 1 January 2000 and 1 April 2024. We included quantitative studies that included a socioeconomically disadvantaged population, conducted studies in countries members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) with universal healthcare and reported on hospital admission or readmissions.
Data extraction and synthesis: We assessed study quality using the Effective Public Health Practice Project tool. We summarised studies using a narrative synthesis approach and present findings using vote counting as a measure of effect.
Results: We included 20 studies of interventions targeted towards socioeconomically disadvantaged populations. Their impacts on hospitalisations of interventions, grouped under three domains-(1) population level health and social policy, (2) health and care service-based interventions and (3) integrative interventions-were mixed. Through vote counting, we found some evidence that social policy interventions targeting socioeconomically disadvantaged groups have an important impact on hospitalisations, especially those focused on improved housing and income.
Conclusions: While ongoing efforts to ensure that healthcare interventions improve the equity of access, experience and outcome are warranted, social policy interventions that address the wider determinants of health, such as housing, income and education, hold promise for controlling rates of hospital admissions in socioeconomically disadvantaged groups. This underscores the value of multi-sectoral action to reduce inequalities. Future studies should explore the long-term outcomes of interventions, particularly integrative ones, which may bring benefits in the long term but not so much in the short term.
目标:社会经济劣势增加了需要住院治疗的急性疾病和伤害的风险,其中一些是可以避免的。本系统综述旨在确定干预措施对社会经济弱势人群住院的影响,并确定知识差距。设计:系统评价(PROSPERO, CRD42019153666)。数据来源:检索MEDLINE (OVID)、Embase (OVID)、CINAHL (EBSCO)、Cochrane CENTRAL (Wiley)和Web of Knowledge平台。入选标准:发表于2000年1月1日至2024年4月1日之间的研究。我们纳入了包括社会经济弱势群体在内的定量研究,在经济合作与发展组织(OECD)全民医疗保健成员国进行了研究,并报告了住院或再入院情况。数据提取和综合:我们使用有效公共卫生实践项目工具评估研究质量。我们总结了使用叙事综合方法的研究,并提出了使用计票作为效果衡量的发现。结果:我们纳入了20项针对社会经济弱势群体的干预研究。它们对住院治疗干预措施的影响分为三个领域:(1)人口水平健康和社会政策,(2)基于健康和护理服务的干预措施,(3)综合干预措施。通过计票,我们发现一些证据表明,针对社会经济弱势群体的社会政策干预对住院治疗有重要影响,特别是那些专注于改善住房和收入的社会政策干预。结论:虽然有必要继续努力确保保健干预措施改善获得机会、经验和结果的公平性,但解决住房、收入和教育等更广泛的健康决定因素的社会政策干预措施有望控制社会经济弱势群体的住院率。这凸显了采取多部门行动减少不平等的价值。未来的研究应该探索干预措施的长期结果,特别是综合干预措施,这可能会带来长期的好处,但在短期内却不是那么多。普洛斯彼罗注册号:CRD42019153666。