Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Richardson Road, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 4AX, UK.
Fuse - UKCRC Centre for Translational Research in Public Health, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
BMC Public Health. 2018 Jul 13;18(1):869. doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-5677-1.
Socio-economic inequalities are associated with unequal exposure to social, economic and environmental risk factors, which in turn contribute to health inequalities. Understanding the impact of specific public health policy interventions will help to establish causality in terms of the effects on health inequalities.
Systematic review methodology was used to identify systematic reviews from high-income countries that describe the health equity effects of upstream public health interventions. Twenty databases were searched from their start date until May 2017. The quality of the included articles was determined using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews tool (AMSTAR).
Twenty-nine systematic reviews were identified reporting 150 unique relevant primary studies. The reviews summarised evidence of all types of primary and secondary prevention policies (fiscal, regulation, education, preventative treatment and screening) across seven public health domains (tobacco, alcohol, food and nutrition, reproductive health services, the control of infectious diseases, the environment and workplace regulations). There were no systematic reviews of interventions targeting mental health. Results were mixed across the public health domains; some policy interventions were shown to reduce health inequalities (e.g. food subsidy programmes, immunisations), others have no effect and some interventions appear to increase inequalities (e.g. 20 mph and low emission zones). The quality of the included reviews (and their primary studies) were generally poor and clear gaps in the evidence base have been highlighted.
The review does tentatively suggest interventions that policy makers might use to reduce health inequalities, although whether the programmes are transferable between high-income countries remains unclear.
PROSPERO registration number: CRD42016025283.
社会经济不平等与社会、经济和环境风险因素的不平等暴露有关,而这些因素又促成了健康不平等。了解特定公共卫生政策干预措施的影响将有助于确定其对健康不平等的影响的因果关系。
使用系统综述方法,从高收入国家中确定描述上游公共卫生干预措施对健康公平影响的系统综述。从其开始日期到 2017 年 5 月,共检索了 20 个数据库。使用评估多个系统综述工具(AMSTAR)来确定纳入文章的质量。
确定了 29 篇系统综述,报告了 150 项独特的相关原始研究。这些综述总结了七个公共卫生领域(烟草、酒精、食品和营养、生殖健康服务、传染病控制、环境和工作场所法规)中所有类型的初级和二级预防政策(财政、监管、教育、预防性治疗和筛查)的证据。没有针对心理健康干预措施的系统综述。各个公共卫生领域的结果参差不齐;一些政策干预措施被证明可以减少健康不平等(例如,食品补贴计划、免疫接种),其他措施则没有效果,而一些干预措施似乎会加剧不平等(例如,20 英里/小时和低排放区)。纳入的综述(及其原始研究)的质量普遍较差,并且突出了证据基础中的明显差距。
尽管这些方案在高收入国家之间是否具有可转移性尚不清楚,但该综述确实初步表明了政策制定者可以用来减少健康不平等的干预措施。
PROSPERO 注册号:CRD42016025283。