AIMS

To discuss existing conceptual frameworks that can be applied to the examination of health inequities in end-of-life care and related health outcomes. We used the Fawcett and Desanto-Madeya evaluation technique modified by the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities Research Framework to include individual, interpersonal, community, and societal levels of influence.

DESIGN

Discussion paper.

DATA SOURCES

We performed a systematic review of PubMed, CINAHL and Embase for conceptual frameworks of health inequities in end-of-life care and health outcomes published as of February 2022.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING

There is a strong need for research that can address multiple factors influencing end-of-life care inequities and health outcomes. To mitigate the complex nature of social determinants of health and structural inequities, researchers, clinicians, educators and administrators should have solid conceptualizations of these multi-level factors. Based on sound and comprehensive frameworks, nurses with interdisciplinary partnerships can promote health equity with a broader health care scope through addressing social determinants of health.

CONCLUSION

We identified and reviewed three frameworks. We concluded all three frameworks have the potential for use in the examination of health inequities in end-of-life care and health outcomes. However, the Conceptual Framework of Minority Access to End-of-Life Care was more applicable to diverse studies and settings when adapted to include fundamental characteristics such as sex and gender.

IMPACT

Despite the substantial rise in end-of-life care delivery, health inequities persist in end-of-life care access and utilization. Though some studies have been conducted to promote health equity by addressing social determinants of health, progress is hampered by their complex and multi-faceted nature. Through a concrete conceptual framework, researchers can comprehensively examine multi-level factors influencing health inequities in end-of-life care.

NO PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This discussion paper focused on reviewing existing evidence.