Promoting action on structural drivers of health inequity: principles for policy evaluation

IF 1.8 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Ashley Schram, B. Townsend, T. Mackean, T. Freeman, Matt Fisher, P. Harris, M. Whitehead, H. van Eyk, F. Baum, S. Friel
{"title":"Promoting action on structural drivers of health inequity: principles for policy evaluation","authors":"Ashley Schram, B. Townsend, T. Mackean, T. Freeman, Matt Fisher, P. Harris, M. Whitehead, H. van Eyk, F. Baum, S. Friel","doi":"10.1332/174426421x16420923635594","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Insufficient progress has been made towards reducing health inequities, due in part to a lack of action on the root causes of health inequities. At present, there is a limited evidence base to guide policy decision making in this space.Key points for discussion: This paper proposes new principles for researchers to conduct health equity policy evaluation. Four key principles are presented: (1) where to evaluate – shifting from familiar to unfamiliar terrain; (2) who to evaluate – shifting from structures of vulnerability to structures of privilege; (3) what to evaluate – shifting from simple figures to complex constructs; and (4) how to evaluate – shifting from ‘gold standard’ to more appropriate ‘fit-for-purpose’ designs. These four principles translate to modifying the policy domains investigated, the populations targeted, the indicators selected, and the methods employed during health equity policy evaluation. The development and implementation of these principles over a five-year programme of work is demonstrated through case studies which reflect the principles in practice.Conclusions and implications: The principles are shared to encourage other researchers to develop evaluation designs of sufficient complexity that they can advance the contribution of health equity policy evaluation to structural policy reforms. As a result, policies and actions on the social determinants of health might be better oriented to achieve the redistribution of power and resources needed to address the root causes of health inequities.Key messagesReducing health inequities requires policy reforms that redistribute power and resources.Guidance on evaluating policy for health equity to shape structural policy reform is limited.Four principles are offered to guide who and what is evaluated, and how and where evaluation occurs.Use of these principles may enhance the impact of policy evaluation in reducing health inequities.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421x16420923635594","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Background: Insufficient progress has been made towards reducing health inequities, due in part to a lack of action on the root causes of health inequities. At present, there is a limited evidence base to guide policy decision making in this space.Key points for discussion: This paper proposes new principles for researchers to conduct health equity policy evaluation. Four key principles are presented: (1) where to evaluate – shifting from familiar to unfamiliar terrain; (2) who to evaluate – shifting from structures of vulnerability to structures of privilege; (3) what to evaluate – shifting from simple figures to complex constructs; and (4) how to evaluate – shifting from ‘gold standard’ to more appropriate ‘fit-for-purpose’ designs. These four principles translate to modifying the policy domains investigated, the populations targeted, the indicators selected, and the methods employed during health equity policy evaluation. The development and implementation of these principles over a five-year programme of work is demonstrated through case studies which reflect the principles in practice.Conclusions and implications: The principles are shared to encourage other researchers to develop evaluation designs of sufficient complexity that they can advance the contribution of health equity policy evaluation to structural policy reforms. As a result, policies and actions on the social determinants of health might be better oriented to achieve the redistribution of power and resources needed to address the root causes of health inequities.Key messagesReducing health inequities requires policy reforms that redistribute power and resources.Guidance on evaluating policy for health equity to shape structural policy reform is limited.Four principles are offered to guide who and what is evaluated, and how and where evaluation occurs.Use of these principles may enhance the impact of policy evaluation in reducing health inequities.
促进针对卫生不平等的结构性驱动因素采取行动:政策评价原则
背景:在减少卫生不平等方面进展不足,部分原因是没有针对卫生不平等的根本原因采取行动。目前,在这一领域指导政策决策的证据基础有限。讨论重点:提出了卫生公平政策评价的新原则。提出了四个关键原则:(1)在哪里评估-从熟悉的领域转移到不熟悉的领域;(2)评估对象——从脆弱结构转向特权结构;(3)评估内容——从简单的数字转向复杂的结构;(4)如何评估——从“黄金标准”转向更合适的“适合目的”设计。这四项原则转化为修改调查的政策领域、目标人群、选择的指标以及卫生公平政策评估期间采用的方法。这些原则在五年工作方案中的发展和执行情况,通过反映这些原则在实践中的个案研究加以说明。结论和启示:分享这些原则是为了鼓励其他研究者开发足够复杂的评价设计,以促进卫生公平政策评价对结构性政策改革的贡献。因此,关于健康问题社会决定因素的政策和行动可以更好地面向实现解决卫生不平等的根本原因所需的权力和资源的重新分配。减少卫生不平等需要进行政策改革,重新分配权力和资源。评价卫生公平政策以影响结构性政策改革的指导是有限的。提供了四个原则来指导评估的对象和内容,以及如何和在何处进行评估。利用这些原则可加强政策评价对减少卫生不公平现象的影响。
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
Evidence & Policy
Evidence & Policy SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
14.30%
发文量
53
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信