Action on the social determinants for advancing health equity in the time of COVID-19: perspectives of actors engaged in a WHO Special Initiative.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Solar O
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9872273 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Action on the social determinants for advancing health equity in the time of COVID-19: perspectives of actors engaged in a WHO Special Initiative.
Solar Orielle O Valentine Nicole N Castedo Antia A Brandt Gonzalo Soto GS Sathyandran Jaitra J Ahmed Zahra Z Cheh Paul P Callon Emma E Porritt Felicity F Espinosa Isabel I Fortune Kira K Kubota Shogo S Elliott Elizabeth E David April Joy AJ Bigdeli Maryam M Hachri Hafid H Bodenmann Patrick P Morisod Kevin K Biehl Molly M Nambiar Devaki D Williams Carmel C Allen Jessica J Goldblatt Peter P Placella Erika E Marmot Michael M Rasanathan Kumanan K
International journal for equity in health 20230124 Suppl 3
Since the 2008 publication of the reports of the Commission on Social Determinants of Health and its nine knowledge networks, substantial research has been undertaken to document and describe health inequities. The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the need for a deeper understanding of, and broader action on, the social determinants of health. Building on this unique and critical opportunity, the World Health Organization is steering a multi-country Initiative to reduce health inequities throug ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveTo use evidence on addressing racism in social care intervention research to create a framework for advancing health equity for all populations with marginalized social identities (e.g., race, gender, and sexual orientation). Such groups have disproportionate social needs (e.g., food insecurity) and negative social determinants of health (SDOH; e.g., poverty). We recommend how the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) could advance health equity for marginalized populations through social care research and care delivery.Data sources and study settingThis commentary is informed by a literature review of social care interventions that were affiliated with healthcare systems; input from health equity researchers, policymakers, and community leaders attending the AHRQ Health Equity Summit; and consensus of the authors.Principal findingsWe recommend that AHRQ: (1) create an ecosystem that values research on SDOH and the effectiveness and implementation of social care interventions in the healthcare sector; (2) work with other federal agencies to (a) develop position statements with actionable recommendations about racism and other systems that perpetuate marginalization based on social identity and (b) develop aligned, complementary approaches to research and care delivery that address social marginalization; (3) advance both inclusive care delivery and inclusive research teams; (4) advance understanding of racism as a social determinant of health and effective strategies to mitigate its adverse impact on health; (5) advance the creation and scaling of effective strategies for addressing SDOH in healthcare systems, particularly in co-creation with community partners; and (6) require social care intervention researchers to use methods that advance our understanding of social health equity.ConclusionsAHRQ, as a federal agency, could help advance health equity using a range of strategies, including using the agency's levers to ensure AHRQ stakeholders examine and address the unique experiences of socially marginalized populations in SDOH and social care intervention research.
| S-EPMC10684037 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The field of public health has increasingly promoted a social ecological approach to health, shifting from an individual, biomedical paradigm to a recognition of social and structural determinants of health and health equity. Yet despite this shift, public health research and practice continue to privilege individual- and interpersonal-level measurements and interventions. Rather than adapting public health practice to social ecological theory, the field has layered new concepts ("root causes," "social determinants") onto a biomedical paradigm-attempting to answer questions presented by the social ecological schema with practices developed in response to biomedicine. This stymies health equity work before it begins-limiting the field's ability to broaden conceptions of well-being, redress histories of inequitable knowledge valuation, and advance systems-level change. To respond effectively to our knowledge of social determinants, public health must resolve the ongoing disconnect between social ecological theory and biomedically-driven practice. To that end, this article issues a clarion call to complete the shift from a biomedical to a social ecological paradigm, and provides a basis for moving theory into practice. It examines biomedicine's foundations and limitations, glosses existing critiques of the paradigm, and describes health equity challenges presented by over-reliance on conventional practices. It then offers theoretical and epistemological direction for developing innovative social ecological strategies that advance health equity.
| S-EPMC7221057 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWhile relationships and connectedness among organizations have been included in implementation theories, models, and frameworks, the increased attention to health equity in implementation science raises the urgency of understanding the role of relationships external to the implementing organization. This paper addresses this gap through an exploration of the role of external relationships in community-based, equity-focused interventions.MethodsThis study focuses on an equity-focused, community-based COVID-19 vaccination intervention in Arkansas, drawing upon long-term community-engaged relationships among University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences and the Hispanic and Marshallese Islander communities. We used an exploratory qualitative descriptive design to examine barriers and facilitators to implementation of COVID-19 vaccination events analyzing in-depth qualitative interviews with implementation team members (n = 17).ResultsAll participants described pre-existing relationships among the implementing organization, partner organizations, and communities as a key implementation determinant for this equity-focused program. At the inter-organizational level, external relationships included formal connections and informal relationships among staff (e.g., communication channels from prior partnerships). At the individual level, strong external relationships with the community were facilitators leveraging long-term engagement, community familiarity, and staff from the communities of focus. Strong external relationships facilitated program reach in underserved communities through three mechanisms: (1) reduced time required to establish functional working relationships among partners; (2) accessibility and cultural congruence of health services; and (3) increased trust among community members. Barriers to implementation also existed in external relationships, but had less influence than facilitators.ConclusionsAchieving health equity in implementation science requires greater understanding of external relationships as implementation determinants. This exploratory study makes a significant contribution to the literature by describing the types of external relationships that facilitate equitable implementation and identifying the mechanisms through which they may work. We argue that approaches to community engagement drawn from community-engaged research approaches may be useful, as these processes require investment in building/maintaining formal and informal organizational and interpersonal relationships. Further research is needed to understand connections among external relationships and other implementation determinants.
| S-EPMC10964718 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEpidemiological evidence on the social determinants of health inequity is well-advanced, but considerably less attention has been given to evaluating the impact of public policies addressing those social determinants. Methodological challenges to produce evidence on policy outcomes present a significant barrier to mobilising policy actions for health equities. This review aims to examine methodological approaches to policy evaluation of health equity outcomes and identify promising approaches for future research.MethodsWe conducted a systematic narrative review of literature critically evaluating policy impact on health equity, synthesizing information on the methodological approaches used. We searched and screened records from five electronic databases, using pre-defined protocols resulting in a total of 50 studies included for review. We coded the studies according to (1) type of policy analysed; (2) research design; (3) analytical techniques; (4) health outcomes; and (5) equity dimensions evaluated.ResultsWe found a growing number of a wide range of policies being evaluated for health equity outcomes using a variety of research designs. The majority of studies employed an observational research design, most of which were cross-sectional, however, other approaches included experimental designs, simulation modelling, and meta-analysis. Regression techniques dominated the analytical approaches, although a number of novel techniques were used which may offer advantages over traditional regression analysis for the study of distributional impacts of policy. Few studies made intra-national or cross-national comparisons or collected primary data. Despite longstanding challenges of attribution in policy outcome evaluation, the majority of the studies attributed change in physical or mental health outcomes to the policy being evaluated.ConclusionOur review provides an overview of methodological approaches to health equity policy outcome evaluation, demonstrating what is most commonplace and opportunities from novel approaches. We found the number of studies evaluating the impacts of public policies on health equity are on the rise, but this area of policy evaluation still requires more attention given growing inequities.
| S-EPMC6037500 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is increasing awareness of the importance of the transformation of mental health systems. Launched in 2019, the WHO Special Initiative for Mental Health seeks to accelerate access to quality and affordable care for mental health conditions as an integral component of Universal Health Coverage. Nine countries are currently engaged with the initiative.MethodsThis study reviewed processes of implementation-and progress achieved-across all settings by late 2022. It involved review of 158 documents provided by WHO relating to Special Initiative activities and 42 interviews with country-level stakeholders, WHO Regional and HQ personnel engaged with the initiative, and core donors. Documents were thematically coded using a template based upon the WHO framework of health system building blocks. Responses to structured interviews were coded based on an emergent thematic framework.ResultsDocumentation reported similar achievements across all domains; however challenges were reported most frequently in relation to service delivery, leadership and governance, and workforce. Issues of financing were notable in being twice as likely to be reported as a challenge than a success. Interviews indicated four major areas of perceived achievement: establishing a platform and profile to address mental health issues; convening a multi-stakeholder, participatory engagement process; new, appropriate services being developed; and key developments in law, policy, or governance around mental health. The planning process followed for the initiative, senior country-level buy-in and the quality of key personnel were the factors considered most influential in driving progress. Ambivalent political commitment and competing priorities were the most frequently cited challenges across all interviewees.ConclusionsThe role of the Special Initiative in raising the profile of mental health on national agendas through a participatory and inclusive process has been widely valued, and there are indications of the beginnings of transformational shifts in mental health services. To secure these benefits, findings suggest three strategic priorities: increasing political prioritisation and funding for systems-level change; clearly articulating sustainable, transformed models of care; and promoting feasible and contextualised measures to support accountability and course correction. All are of potential relevance in informing global strategies for mental health systems transformation in other settings.
| S-EPMC11492481 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The evolution of Healthy People reflects growing awareness of health inequities over the life course. Each decade, the initiative has gained understanding of how the nation can achieve health and well-being. To inform Healthy People 2030's visionary goal of achieving health equity in the coming decade, the Secretary's Advisory Committee on National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives for 2030 (Secretary's Advisory Committee) provided the US Department of Health and Human Services with guidance on key terms, frameworks, and measurement for health equity. Conditions in the environments in which people are born, live, learn, work, play, worship, and age influence health and well-being outcomes, functioning, and quality-of-life outcomes and risks and are mostly responsible for health inequities. No single individual, organization, community, or sector has sole ownership, accountability, or capacity to sustain the health and well-being of an entire population. The COVID-19 pandemic in the United States highlights underlying inequities and disparities in health and health care across segments of the population. Contributing factors that were known prior to the pandemic have led to major discrepancies in rates of infection and death. To reduce health disparities and advance health equity, systems approaches-designed to shift interconnected aspects of public health problems-are needed.
| S-EPMC8478299 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionEvents of spring 2020-the COVID19 pandemic and re-birth of a social justice movement-have thrown disparities in disease risk, morbidity, and mortality in sharp relief. In response, healthcare organizations have shifted attentions and resources towards equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) issues and initiatives like never before. Focused, proven equity-centered skill and mindset development is needed for healthcare professionals to operationalize these pledges and stated aims.AimThis article highlights program evaluation results for this Clinical Scholars National Leadership Institute (CSNLI) specific to EDI. We will show that CSNLI imparts the valuable and essential skills to health professionals that are needed to realize health equity through organizational and system change.SettingInitial cohort of 29 participants in CSNLI, engaging in the program over 3 years through in-person and distance-based learning offerings and activities.Program descriptionThe CSNLI is a 3-year, intensive leadership program that centers EDI skill development across personal, interpersonal, organizational, and systems domains through its design, competencies, and curriculum.Program evaluationA robust evaluation following the Kirkpatrick Model offers analysis of four data collecting activities related to program participants' EDI learning, behavioral change, and results.DiscussionOver the course of the program, participants made significant gains in competencies related to equity, diversity, and inclusion. Furthermore, participants demonstrated growth in behavior change and leadership activities in the areas of organizational and system change. Results demonstrate the need to center both leader and leadership development on equity, diversity, and inclusion curriculum to make real change in the US Healthcare System.
| S-EPMC9165542 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn lower-resource settings like Tanzania, people living with schizophrenia (PWS) rely on their families for much of their social support, thus leading family members to become their main caregivers. How PWS and their families understand and implement social support can profoundly impact recovery pathways. This study examines how PWS and caregivers of PWS in Tanzania describe receiving and giving social support. We describe, from the perspectives of treatment engaged PWS and unmatched caregivers, different types of social support experienced and provided and examine any differences in the types and expectations of social support expressed by PWS versus caregivers.MethodsA total of 39 semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with PWS (n = 19) and caregivers (n = 20) recruited from outpatient psychiatric clinics in tertiary-level hospitals in Tanzania across two geographic regions. Thematic content analyses were based on four dimensions of social support (instrumental, emotional, informational, and appraisal).ResultsResults revealed four themes: 1) Financial and basic needs support from families is common yet critical for daily living (instrumental support); 2) There were mixed experiences regarding provision and receipt of love and acceptance with desires and calls for more encouragement and moral support (emotional support); 3) Caregivers try to provide knowledge, guidance, and reminders related to illness management for PWS but acknowledge their own gaps in understanding recovery promotion and effective caregiving (informational & appraisal supports), 4) A cross-cutting issue was calls for more social support from the wider community.ConclusionSocial support is a multi-dimensional construct recognized by PWS and caregivers as critical for illness management, yet gaps remain, often due to lack of knowledge of how to bolster social support. Given the heavy reliance on families for social support in lower-resource contexts, psychiatric services can intervene with clinic-based psychoeducation for PWS and their families to improve quality of life and functioning.
| S-EPMC11238882 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Progress in addressing systematic health inequities, both between and within countries, has been slow. However, there are examples of actions taken on social determinants of health and policy changes aimed at shaping the underlying sociopolitical context that drives these inequities.Using case study methodology, this article identifies five countries (Ethiopia, Jordan, Spain, Sri Lanka and Vietnam) that made progress on health equity during 2011-2021 and three countries (Afghanistan, Nigeria and the USA) that had not made the same gains. The case studies revealed social, cultural and political conditions that appeared to be prerequisites for enhancing health equity.Data related to population health outcomes, human development, poverty, universal healthcare, gender equity, sociocultural narratives, political stability and leadership, governance, peace, democracy, willingness to collaborate, social protection and the Sustainable Development Goals were interrogated revealing four key factors that help advance health equity. These were (1) action directed at structural determinants of health inequities, for example, sociopolitical conditions that determine the distribution of resources and opportunities based on gender, race, ethnicity and geographical location; (2) leadership and good governance, for example, the degree of freedom, and the absence of violence and terrorism; (3) a health equity lens for policy development, for example, facilitating the uptake of a health equity agenda through cross-sector policies and (4) taking action to level the social gradient in health through a combination of universal and targeted approaches.Reducing health inequities is a complex and challenging task. The countries in this study do not reveal guaranteed recipes for progressing health equity; however, the efforts should be recognised, as well as lessons learnt from countries struggling to make progress.
| S-EPMC11664353 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe strategic importance of monitoring social determinants of health (SDH) and health equity and inequity has been a central focus in global discussions around the 2011 Rio Political Declaration on SDH and the Millennium Development Goals. This study is part of the World Health Organization (WHO) equity-oriented analysis of linkages between health and other sectors (EQuAL) project, which aims to define a framework for monitoring SDH and health equity.ObjectivesThis review provides a global summary and analysis of the domains and indicators that have been used in recent studies covering the SDH. These studies are considered here within the context of indicators proposed by the WHO EQuAL project. The objectives are as follows: to describe the range of international and national studies and the types of indicators most frequently used; report how they are used in causal explanation of the SDH; and identify key priorities and challenges reported in current research for national monitoring of the SDH.DesignWe conducted a scoping review of published SDH studies in the PubMed(®) database to obtain evidence of socio-economic indicators. We evaluated, selected, and extracted data from national scale studies published from 2004 to 2014. The research included papers published in English, Italian, French, Portuguese, and Spanish.ResultsThe final sample consisted of 96 articles. SDH monitoring is well reported in the scientific literature independent of the economic level of the country and magnitude of deprivation in population groups. The research methods were mostly quantitative and many papers used multilevel and multivariable statistical analyses and indexes to measure health inequalities and SDH. In addition to the usual economic indicators, a high number of socio-economic indicators were used. The indicators covered a broad range of social dimensions, which were given consideration within and across different social groups. Many indicators included in the WHO EQuAL framework were not common in the studies in this review due to their intersectoral and interdisciplinary nature.ConclusionsOur review illustrates that the attention to SDH monitoring has grown in terms of its importance and complexity within the scientific health literature. We identified a need to make indicators more wide-ranging in order to include a broader range of social conditions. The WHO EQuAL framework can provide intersectoral and interdisciplinary means of building a more comprehensive standardised approach to monitoring the SDH and improving equity in health.
| S-EPMC4744868 | biostudies-literature