Dataset Information

Preventive care recommendations to promote health equity.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Avoidable disparities in health outcomes persist in Canada despite substantial investments in a publicly funded health care system that includes preventive services. Our objective was to provide preventive care recommendations that promote health equity by prioritizing effective interventions for people experiencing disadvantages.

Methods

The guideline was developed by a primary care provider-patient panel, with input from a patient-partner panel with diverse lived experiences. After selecting priority topics, we searched for systematic reviews and recent randomized controlled trials of screening and other relevant studies of screening accuracy and management efficacy. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to develop recommendations and followed the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) reporting guidance. We managed competing interests using the Guideline International Network principles. The recommendations were externally reviewed by content experts and circulated for endorsement by national stakeholders.

Recommendations

We developed 15 screening and other preventive care recommendations and 1 policy recommendation on improving access to primary care. We recommend prioritized outreach for colorectal cancer screening starting at age 45 years and for cardiovascular disease risk assessment, to help address inequities and promote health. Specific interventions that should be rolled out in ways that address inequities include human papillomavirus (HPV) self-testing, HIV self-testing and interferon-γ release assays for tuberculosis infection. Screening for depression, substance use, intimate partner violence and poverty should help connect people experiencing specific disadvantages with proven interventions. We recommend automatic connection to primary care for people experiencing disadvantages.

Interpretation

Proven preventive care interventions can address health inequities if people experiencing disadvantages are prioritized. Clinicians, health care organizations and governments should take evidence-based actions and track progress in promoting health equity across Canada.

SUBMITTER: Persaud N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10519166 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Preventive care recommendations to promote health equity.

Persaud Nav N Sabir Areesha A Woods Hannah H Sayani Ambreen A Agarwal Arnav A Chowdhury Muna M de Leon-Demare Kathleen K Ibezi Somtochukwu S Jan Saadia Hameed SH Katz Alan A LaFortune Frantz-Daniel FD Lewis Melanie M McFarlane Trudy T Oberai Anjali A Oladele Yinka Y Onyekwelu Onyema O Peters Lisa L Wong Patrick P Lofters Aisha A

CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne 20230901 37

<h4>Background</h4>Avoidable disparities in health outcomes persist in Canada despite substantial investments in a publicly funded health care system that includes preventive services. Our objective was to provide preventive care recommendations that promote health equity by prioritizing effective interventions for people experiencing disadvantages.<h4>Methods</h4>The guideline was developed by a primary care provider-patient panel, with input from a patient-partner panel with diverse lived expe ...[more]

PMID: 37748784

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEvidence-based preventive services offer profound health benefits, yet Americans receive only half of indicated care. A variety of government and specialty society policy initiatives are promoting the adoption of information technologies to engage patients in their care, such as personal health records, but current systems may not utilize the technology's full potential.MethodsUsing a previously described model to make information technology more patient-centered, we developed an interactive preventive health record (IPHR) designed to more deeply engage patients in preventive care and health promotion. We recruited 14 primary care practices to promote the IPHR to all adult patients and sought practice and patient input in designing the IPHR to ensure its usability, salience, and generalizability. The input involved patient usability tests, practice workflow observations, learning collaboratives, and patient feedback. Use of the IPHR was measured using practice appointment and IPHR databases.ResultsThe IPHR that emerged from this process generates tailored patient recommendations based on guidelines from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and other organizations. It extracts clinical data from the practices' electronic medical record and obtains health risk assessment information from patients. Clinical content is translated and explained in lay language. Recommendations review the benefits and uncertainties of services and possible actions for patients and clinicians. Embedded in recommendations are self management tools, risk calculators, decision aids, and community resources--selected to match patient's clinical circumstances. Within six months, practices had encouraged 14.4% of patients to use the IPHR (ranging from 1.5% to 28.3% across the 14 practices). Practices successfully incorporated the IPHR into workflow, using it to prepare patients for visits, augment health behavior counseling, explain test results, automatically issue patient reminders for overdue services, prompt clinicians about needed services, and formulate personalized prevention plans.ConclusionsThe IPHR demonstrates that a patient-centered personal health record that interfaces with the electronic medical record can give patients a high level of individualized guidance and be successfully adopted by busy primary care practices. Further study and refinement are necessary to make information systems even more patient-centered and to demonstrate their impact on care.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00589173.

Project description:Background. Few Americans obtain all 41 guideline-recommended preventive services for nonpregnant adults. We assessed patient interest in prioritizing their preventive care needs. Methods. We conducted a mixed-methods study, with 4 focus groups (N = 28) at a single institution and a nationwide survey (N = 2,103). Participants were middle-aged and older adults with preventive care needs. We obtained reactions to written materials describing the magnitude of benefit from major preventive services, including both absolute and relative benefits. Recommendations were individualized for patient risk factors ("individualized preventive care recommendations"). Focus groups assessed patient interest, how patients would want to discuss individualized recommendations with their providers, and potential for individualized recommendations to influence patient decision making. Survey content was based on focus groups and analyzed with logistic regression. Results. Patients expressed strong interest in individualized recommendations. Among survey respondents, an adjusted 88.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 86.7% to 89.7%) found individualized recommendations very easy to understand, 77.2% (95% CI = 75.3% to 79.1%) considered them very useful, and 64.9% (95% CI = 62.8% to 67.0%) highly trustworthy (each ≥6/7 on Likert scale). Three quarters of participants wanted to receive their own individualized recommendations in upcoming primary care visits (adjusted proportion = 77.5%, 95% CI = 75.6% to 79.4%). Both focus group and survey participants supported shared decision making and reported that individualized recommendations would improve motivation to obtain preventive care. Half of survey respondents reported that they would be much more likely to visit their doctor if they knew individualized recommendations would be discussed, compared with 4.2% who would not be more likely to visit their doctor. Survey respondents already prioritized preventive services, stating they were most likely to choose quick/easy preventive services and least likely to choose expensive preventive services (adjusted proportions, 63.8% and 8.5%, respectively). Results were consistent in sensitivity analyses. Conclusions. Individualized preventive care recommendations are likely to be well received in primary care and might motivate patients to improve adherence to evidence-based care.

Project description:BackgroundSocial inequities are widening globally, contributing to growing health and health care inequities. Health inequities are unjust differences in health and well-being between and within groups of people caused by socially structured, and thus avoidable, marginalizing conditions such as poverty and systemic racism. In Canada, such conditions disproportionately affect Indigenous persons, racialized newcomers, those with mental health and substance use issues, and those experiencing interpersonal violence. Despite calls to enhance equity in health care to contribute to improving population health, few studies examine how to achieve equity at the point of care, and the impacts of doing so. Many people facing marginalizing conditions experience inadequate and inequitable treatment in emergency departments (EDs), which makes people less likely to access care, paradoxically resulting in reliance on EDs through delays to care and repeat visits, interfering with effective care delivery and increasing human and financial costs. EDs are key settings with potential for mitigating the impacts of structural conditions and barriers to care linked to health inequities.MethodsEQUIP is an organizational intervention to promote equity. Building on promising research in primary health care, we are adapting EQUIP to emergency departments, and testing its impact at three geographically and demographically diverse EDs in one Canadian province. A mixed methods multisite design will examine changes in key outcomes including: a) a longitudinal analysis of change over time based on structured assessments of patients and staff, b) an interrupted time series design of administrative data (i.e., staff sick leave, patients who leave without care being completed), c) a process evaluation to assess how the intervention was implemented and the contextual features of the environment and process that are influential for successful implementation, and d) a cost-benefit analysis.DiscussionThis project will generate both process- and outcome-based evidence to improve the provision of equity-oriented health care in emergency departments, particularly targeting groups known to be at greatest risk for experiencing the negative impacts of health and health care inequities. The main deliverable is a health equity-enhancing framework, including implementable, measurable interventions, tested, refined and relevant to diverse EDs.Trial registrationClinical Trials.gov # NCT03369678 (registration date November 18, 2017).

Project description:BackgroundRecommendations to prevent morbidity and mortality in children was a high priority for the editorial group of a WHO pocket book for primary health care in the European region. However, the benefit of preventive interventions is not always clear and recommendations differ across countries and institutions. Here, we summarize the existing recommendations and the most recent evidence on ten selected preventive interventions applied to children under five years to inform this group. In addition, we reflect on the process and challenges of developing these summaries.MethodsFor each intervention, we systematically searched for current recommendations from the WHO, the United States Preventive Services Task Force, the workgroup PrevInfad from the Spanish Association of Primary Care Pediatrics, the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Then, we systematically searched the sources above and the Cochrane library for relevant systematic reviews. For each topic, we reported the recommendations and the strength of the recommendation when and as reported by the authors. We summarized the main findings of systematic reviews with the certainty of the evidence as reported. Categorising the ten preventive interventions in three groups allowed narrative comparisons between similar types of interventions and between groups.Results and discussionFor the single interventions of providing vitamins D and K and topical fluoride there is overall a high degree of consensus between institutions for the evidence of their effectiveness. For the multiple interventions to prevent sudden infant death syndrome and unintentional injuries consensus was more variable as evidence of effectiveness is harder to ascertain. For the screening interventions the summaries of recommendations and evidence varied too. While institutions generally agreed in recommending for vision screening and against universal screening for language and speech delay and iron deficiency, they had some differences for pulse oximetry and autism. The transparent and independent process shed light upon how institutions use existing evidence in their settings - common and different positions were accounted for and became visible. We also identified gaps and duplications of research. Our approach was a crucial starting point for developing the respective sections in the pocket book.

Project description:ObjectiveTo describe health equity research priorities for health care delivery systems and delineate a research and action agenda that generates evidence-based solutions to persistent racial and ethnic inequities in health outcomes.Data sources and study settingThis project was conducted as a component of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's (AHRQ) stakeholder engaged process to develop an Equity Agenda and Action Plan to guide priority setting to advance health equity. Recommendations were developed and refined based on expert input, evidence review, and stakeholder engagement. Participating stakeholders included experts from academia, health care organizations, industry, and government.Study designExpert group consensus, informed by stakeholder engagement and targeted evidence review.Data collection/extraction methodsPriority themes were derived iteratively through (1) brainstorming and idea reduction, (2) targeted evidence review of candidate themes, (3) determination of preliminary themes; (4) input on preliminary themes from stakeholders attending AHRQ's 2022 Health Equity Summit; and (5) and refinement of themes based on that input. The final set of research and action recommendations was determined by authors' consensus.Principal findingsHealth care delivery systems have contributed to racial and ethnic disparities in health care. High quality research is needed to inform health care delivery systems approaches to undo systemic barriers and inequities. We identified six priority themes for research; (1) institutional leadership, culture, and workforce; (2) data-driven, culturally tailored care; (3) health equity targeted performance incentives; (4) health equity-informed approaches to health system consolidation and access; (5) whole person care; (6) and whole community investment. We also suggest cross-cutting themes regarding research workforce and research timelines.ConclusionsAs the nation's primary health services research agency, AHRQ can advance equitable delivery of health care by funding research and disseminating evidence to help transform the organization and delivery of health care.

Dataset Information

Preventive care recommendations to promote health equity.

Background

Methods

Recommendations

Interpretation

Publications

Preventive care recommendations to promote health equity.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets