通过复杂的卫生干预措施实现卫生公平:采用何种评价方法和设计?范围审查

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Iñaki Blanco-Cazeaux , Thomas Ferté , Coline Bruzek , Marie Gaudart , Karelle Ngabdo , Jérôme Wittwer , Florence Francis-Oliviero
{"title":"通过复杂的卫生干预措施实现卫生公平:采用何种评价方法和设计?范围审查","authors":"Iñaki Blanco-Cazeaux ,&nbsp;Thomas Ferté ,&nbsp;Coline Bruzek ,&nbsp;Marie Gaudart ,&nbsp;Karelle Ngabdo ,&nbsp;Jérôme Wittwer ,&nbsp;Florence Francis-Oliviero","doi":"10.1016/j.puhe.2025.105962","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>Health inequalities (HI) are systematic and avoidable disparities. While many public health interventions target HI reduction, their impact is not always evaluated. We assessed the extent to which economic indicators and methods are used to evaluate HI reduction in complex health interventions.</div></div><div><h3>Study design</h3><div>We performed a scoping review following Arksey and O'Malley's framework.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We searched PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, EconLit, and PsycINFO for studies evaluating public health interventions aimed at reducing HI.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Of 490 screened articles, 19 met inclusion criteria. Most studies (n = 10) used randomised controlled trials. The predominant evaluation method was subgroup analyses based on socioeconomic categories (n = 10), followed by interaction terms (n = 5) and difference-in-differences (n = 4). However, no study directly assessed HI reduction using dedicated economic indicators.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Despite the stated goal of reducing HI, evaluations often fail to measure this impact explicitly. This omission poses methodological risks, as some interventions may unintentionally widen disparities. We advocate for systematic inclusion of economic indicators, such as the Gini index or methods, such as Distributional Cost-Effectiveness Analysis, to ensure a more rigorous assessment of HI in public health interventions.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49651,"journal":{"name":"Public Health","volume":"249 ","pages":"Article 105962"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Targeting health equity through complex health interventions: Which evaluation methods and designs are used? A scoping review\",\"authors\":\"Iñaki Blanco-Cazeaux ,&nbsp;Thomas Ferté ,&nbsp;Coline Bruzek ,&nbsp;Marie Gaudart ,&nbsp;Karelle Ngabdo ,&nbsp;Jérôme Wittwer ,&nbsp;Florence Francis-Oliviero\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.puhe.2025.105962\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>Health inequalities (HI) are systematic and avoidable disparities. While many public health interventions target HI reduction, their impact is not always evaluated. We assessed the extent to which economic indicators and methods are used to evaluate HI reduction in complex health interventions.</div></div><div><h3>Study design</h3><div>We performed a scoping review following Arksey and O'Malley's framework.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We searched PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, EconLit, and PsycINFO for studies evaluating public health interventions aimed at reducing HI.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Of 490 screened articles, 19 met inclusion criteria. Most studies (n = 10) used randomised controlled trials. The predominant evaluation method was subgroup analyses based on socioeconomic categories (n = 10), followed by interaction terms (n = 5) and difference-in-differences (n = 4). However, no study directly assessed HI reduction using dedicated economic indicators.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Despite the stated goal of reducing HI, evaluations often fail to measure this impact explicitly. This omission poses methodological risks, as some interventions may unintentionally widen disparities. We advocate for systematic inclusion of economic indicators, such as the Gini index or methods, such as Distributional Cost-Effectiveness Analysis, to ensure a more rigorous assessment of HI in public health interventions.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49651,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Public Health\",\"volume\":\"249 \",\"pages\":\"Article 105962\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-10\",\"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/S0033350625004081\",\"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/S0033350625004081","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

健康不平等是一种系统性的、可避免的不平等。虽然许多公共卫生干预措施的目标是减少艾滋病毒感染,但它们的影响并不总是得到评估。我们评估了在何种程度上使用经济指标和方法来评估在复杂的卫生干预措施中减少艾滋病毒感染率。研究设计我们按照Arksey和O'Malley的框架进行了范围审查。方法我们检索PubMed、Scopus、CINAHL、EconLit和PsycINFO,以评估旨在降低HI的公共卫生干预措施。结果490篇筛选文章中,19篇符合纳入标准。大多数研究(n = 10)采用随机对照试验。主要的评价方法是基于社会经济类别的亚组分析(n = 10),其次是相互作用项(n = 5)和差异中的差异(n = 4)。然而,没有研究使用专门的经济指标直接评估HI的减少。结论:尽管降低HI的目标是明确的,但评估往往不能明确地衡量这种影响。这种遗漏带来了方法学上的风险,因为一些干预措施可能无意中扩大了差距。我们提倡系统地纳入经济指标,如基尼指数或方法,如分配成本效益分析,以确保在公共卫生干预措施中更严格地评估HI。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Targeting health equity through complex health interventions: Which evaluation methods and designs are used? A scoping review

Objectives

Health inequalities (HI) are systematic and avoidable disparities. While many public health interventions target HI reduction, their impact is not always evaluated. We assessed the extent to which economic indicators and methods are used to evaluate HI reduction in complex health interventions.

Study design

We performed a scoping review following Arksey and O'Malley's framework.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, EconLit, and PsycINFO for studies evaluating public health interventions aimed at reducing HI.

Results

Of 490 screened articles, 19 met inclusion criteria. Most studies (n = 10) used randomised controlled trials. The predominant evaluation method was subgroup analyses based on socioeconomic categories (n = 10), followed by interaction terms (n = 5) and difference-in-differences (n = 4). However, no study directly assessed HI reduction using dedicated economic indicators.

Conclusions

Despite the stated goal of reducing HI, evaluations often fail to measure this impact explicitly. This omission poses methodological risks, as some interventions may unintentionally widen disparities. We advocate for systematic inclusion of economic indicators, such as the Gini index or methods, such as Distributional Cost-Effectiveness Analysis, to ensure a more rigorous assessment of HI in public health interventions.
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信