Farrer Linden, Marinetti Claudia, Cavaco Yoline Kuipers, Costongs Caroline
EuroHealthNet.
Milbank Q. 2015 Jun;93(2):392-437. doi: 10.1111/1468-0009.12112.
POLICY POINTS: Many barriers hamper advocacy for health equity, including the contemporary economic zeitgeist, the biomedical health perspective, and difficulties cooperating across policy sectors on the issue. Effective advocacy should include persistent efforts to raise awareness and understanding of the social determinants of health. Education on the social determinants as part of medical training should be encouraged, including professional training within disadvantaged communities. Advocacy organizations have a central role in advocating for health equity given the challenges bridging the worlds of civil society, research, and policy.
Health inequalities are systematic differences in health among social groups that are caused by unequal exposure to-and distributions of-the social determinants of health (SDH). They are persistent between and within countries despite action to reduce them. Advocacy is a means of promoting policies that improve health equity, but the literature on how to do so effectively is dispersed. The aim of this review is to synthesize the evidence in the academic and gray literature and to provide a body of knowledge for advocates to draw on to inform their efforts.
This article is a systematic review of the academic literature and a fixed-length systematic search of the gray literature. After applying our inclusion criteria, we analyzed our findings according to our predefined dimensions of advocacy for health equity. Last, we synthesized our findings and made a critical appraisal of the literature.
The policy world is complex, and scientific evidence is unlikely to be conclusive in making decisions. Timely qualitative, interdisciplinary, and mixed-methods research may be valuable in advocacy efforts. The potential impact of evidence can be increased by "packaging" it as part of knowledge transfer and translation. Increased contact between researchers and policymakers could improve the uptake of research in policy processes. Researchers can play a role in advocacy efforts, although health professionals and disadvantaged people, who have direct contact with or experience of hardship, can be particularly persuasive in advocacy efforts. Different types of advocacy messages can accompany evidence, but messages should be tailored to advocacy target. Several barriers hamper advocacy efforts. The most frequently cited in the academic literature are the current political and economic zeitgeist and related public opinion, which tend to blame disadvantaged people for their ill health, even though biomedical approaches to health and political short-termism also act as barriers. These barriers could be tackled through long-term actions to raise public awareness and understanding of the SDH and through training of health professionals in advocacy. Advocates need to take advantage of "windows of opportunity," which open and close quickly, and demonstrate expertise and credibility.
This article brings together for the first time evidence from the academic and the gray literature and provides a building block for efforts to advocate for health equity. Evidence regarding many of the dimensions is scant, and additional research is merited, particularly concerning the applicability of findings outside the English-speaking world. Advocacy organizations have a central role in advocating for health equity, given the challenges bridging the worlds of civil society, research, and policy.
政策要点:诸多障碍阻碍了对健康公平的倡导,包括当代经济思潮、生物医学健康视角以及在该问题上跨政策部门合作的困难。有效的倡导应持续努力提高对健康社会决定因素的认识和理解。应鼓励将健康社会决定因素的教育纳入医学培训,包括在弱势社区内的专业培训。鉴于在连接民间社会、研究和政策领域方面存在挑战,倡导组织在倡导健康公平方面发挥着核心作用。
健康不平等是社会群体之间在健康方面的系统性差异,由对健康社会决定因素(SDH)的不平等接触和分配所导致。尽管各国采取了行动来减少健康不平等,但它们在国家之间和国家内部仍然持续存在。倡导是促进改善健康公平政策的一种手段,但关于如何有效开展倡导的文献较为分散。本综述的目的是综合学术文献和灰色文献中的证据,并为倡导者提供一批知识以供参考,为其努力提供信息。
本文是对学术文献的系统综述以及对灰色文献的固定长度系统检索。在应用纳入标准后,我们根据预先定义的健康公平倡导维度分析了研究结果。最后,我们综合了研究结果并对文献进行了批判性评估。
政策领域复杂,科学证据在决策时不太可能具有决定性。及时开展定性、跨学科和混合方法研究在倡导工作中可能很有价值。通过将证据“打包”作为知识转移和转化的一部分,可以增强证据的潜在影响。研究人员与政策制定者之间加强联系可以提高政策制定过程中对研究的采纳程度。研究人员可以在倡导工作中发挥作用,不过与困难有直接接触或经历的卫生专业人员和弱势群体在倡导工作中可能特别有说服力。证据可以伴随不同类型的倡导信息,但信息应针对倡导目标进行定制。有几个障碍阻碍了倡导工作。学术文献中最常提到的是当前的政治和经济思潮以及相关的公众舆论,它们往往将弱势群体的健康不佳归咎于他们自身,尽管生物医学健康方法和政治短期主义也构成障碍。这些障碍可以通过长期行动来解决,以提高公众对健康社会决定因素的认识和理解,并通过对卫生专业人员进行倡导培训来解决。倡导者需要利用迅速打开和关闭的“机会之窗”,并展示专业知识和可信度。
本文首次汇集了学术文献和灰色文献中的证据,并为倡导健康公平的努力提供了一个基石。关于许多维度的证据很少,值得进一步研究,特别是关于研究结果在英语世界以外的适用性。鉴于在连接民间社会、研究和政策领域方面存在挑战,倡导组织在倡导健康公平方面发挥着核心作用。