FAIRSTEPS 研究 - 利用利益相关者视角解决初级保健中不平等问题的框架:综合证据审查和德尔菲共识

IF 3.9 3区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Ben Jackson, Caroline Mitchell, Joanne Coster, Tom Lawy, Chris Burton, Josephine Reynolds, Munira Essat, Anna Cantrell, Mark Clowes, Steven Ariss
{"title":"FAIRSTEPS 研究 - 利用利益相关者视角解决初级保健中不平等问题的框架:综合证据审查和德尔菲共识","authors":"Ben Jackson,&nbsp;Caroline Mitchell,&nbsp;Joanne Coster,&nbsp;Tom Lawy,&nbsp;Chris Burton,&nbsp;Josephine Reynolds,&nbsp;Munira Essat,&nbsp;Anna Cantrell,&nbsp;Mark Clowes,&nbsp;Steven Ariss","doi":"10.1016/j.puhe.2024.10.009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>Health inequities are unjust and avoidable differences in health outcomes across populations and between population groups. Though these arise predominantly from social determinants of health, healthcare is estimated to contribute around 20 % and primary healthcare reduces inequities in healthcare outcomes. As each provider works in their local context, we sought to provide an evidence-informed framework for designing, implementing, and evaluating local health inequity interventions in primary care.</div></div><div><h3>Study design</h3><div>Mixed methods approach: an integrative evidence review, a multidisciplinary Delphi consensus study and collaborative patient and public participation.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We searched published and grey literature for examples of primary care health inequity interventions. Our Delphi survey then asked primary care professionals how feasible and useful similar interventions would be in their local contexts. We incorporated an ongoing dialogue people with lived experience of health inequity in our design, implementation, and analysis.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Sixty-nine published papers and 19 grey literature papers were included. Interventions included multiple objectives (e.g., tailored provision, practitioner training) or focus (e.g., medical care, screening). Theory underpinning intervention design was rarely explicit but some specific tools and theory was identified for the framework. Practitioners and our patient group prioritised 28 example interventions to aid the design of local contextually sensitive interventions.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>We combined evidence synthesis, practitioner consultation and dialogue with people with lived experience produced an evidence-informed framework for the design, implementation and evaluation of local primary care health inequity interventions. The public and practitioner voice increases the credibility of our framework as a useful tool for service development.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49651,"journal":{"name":"Public Health","volume":"237 ","pages":"Pages 307-315"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"FAIRSTEPS study - Framework Addressing Inequities in pRimary care using STakEholder PerspectiveS: Integrative evidence review and Delphi consensus\",\"authors\":\"Ben Jackson,&nbsp;Caroline Mitchell,&nbsp;Joanne Coster,&nbsp;Tom Lawy,&nbsp;Chris Burton,&nbsp;Josephine Reynolds,&nbsp;Munira Essat,&nbsp;Anna Cantrell,&nbsp;Mark Clowes,&nbsp;Steven Ariss\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.puhe.2024.10.009\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>Health inequities are unjust and avoidable differences in health outcomes across populations and between population groups. Though these arise predominantly from social determinants of health, healthcare is estimated to contribute around 20 % and primary healthcare reduces inequities in healthcare outcomes. As each provider works in their local context, we sought to provide an evidence-informed framework for designing, implementing, and evaluating local health inequity interventions in primary care.</div></div><div><h3>Study design</h3><div>Mixed methods approach: an integrative evidence review, a multidisciplinary Delphi consensus study and collaborative patient and public participation.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We searched published and grey literature for examples of primary care health inequity interventions. Our Delphi survey then asked primary care professionals how feasible and useful similar interventions would be in their local contexts. We incorporated an ongoing dialogue people with lived experience of health inequity in our design, implementation, and analysis.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Sixty-nine published papers and 19 grey literature papers were included. Interventions included multiple objectives (e.g., tailored provision, practitioner training) or focus (e.g., medical care, screening). Theory underpinning intervention design was rarely explicit but some specific tools and theory was identified for the framework. Practitioners and our patient group prioritised 28 example interventions to aid the design of local contextually sensitive interventions.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>We combined evidence synthesis, practitioner consultation and dialogue with people with lived experience produced an evidence-informed framework for the design, implementation and evaluation of local primary care health inequity interventions. The public and practitioner voice increases the credibility of our framework as a useful tool for service development.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49651,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Public Health\",\"volume\":\"237 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 307-315\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Public Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0033350624004207\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0033350624004207","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目标健康不公平是指不同人群和不同人群之间在健康结果方面存在的不公正且可避免的差异。尽管这些不平等主要是由健康的社会决定因素造成的,但据估计,医疗保健造成的不平等约占 20%,而初级医疗保健可减少医疗保健结果的不平等。由于每个医疗服务提供者都在当地开展工作,因此我们试图为设计、实施和评估当地初级医疗保健中的健康不平等干预措施提供一个循证框架。研究设计混合方法:综合证据回顾、多学科德尔菲共识研究以及患者和公众的合作参与。然后,我们进行了德尔菲调查,询问初级保健专业人员类似干预措施在当地的可行性和实用性。在设计、实施和分析过程中,我们与具有健康不平等亲身经历的人进行了持续对话。干预措施包括多种目标(如量身定制的服务、从业人员培训)或重点(如医疗保健、筛查)。干预设计所依据的理论很少明确,但为框架确定了一些具体的工具和理论。我们将证据综合、从业人员咨询以及与有生活经验者的对话结合起来,为当地初级保健健康不平等干预措施的设计、实施和评估提供了一个有证据支持的框架。公众和从业人员的声音提高了我们框架的可信度,使其成为服务发展的有用工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
FAIRSTEPS study - Framework Addressing Inequities in pRimary care using STakEholder PerspectiveS: Integrative evidence review and Delphi consensus

Objectives

Health inequities are unjust and avoidable differences in health outcomes across populations and between population groups. Though these arise predominantly from social determinants of health, healthcare is estimated to contribute around 20 % and primary healthcare reduces inequities in healthcare outcomes. As each provider works in their local context, we sought to provide an evidence-informed framework for designing, implementing, and evaluating local health inequity interventions in primary care.

Study design

Mixed methods approach: an integrative evidence review, a multidisciplinary Delphi consensus study and collaborative patient and public participation.

Methods

We searched published and grey literature for examples of primary care health inequity interventions. Our Delphi survey then asked primary care professionals how feasible and useful similar interventions would be in their local contexts. We incorporated an ongoing dialogue people with lived experience of health inequity in our design, implementation, and analysis.

Results

Sixty-nine published papers and 19 grey literature papers were included. Interventions included multiple objectives (e.g., tailored provision, practitioner training) or focus (e.g., medical care, screening). Theory underpinning intervention design was rarely explicit but some specific tools and theory was identified for the framework. Practitioners and our patient group prioritised 28 example interventions to aid the design of local contextually sensitive interventions.

Conclusions

We combined evidence synthesis, practitioner consultation and dialogue with people with lived experience produced an evidence-informed framework for the design, implementation and evaluation of local primary care health inequity interventions. The public and practitioner voice increases the credibility of our framework as a useful tool for service development.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Public Health
Public Health 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
280
审稿时长
37 days
期刊介绍: Public Health is an international, multidisciplinary peer-reviewed journal. It publishes original papers, reviews and short reports on all aspects of the science, philosophy, and practice of public health.
×
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