Suppr超能文献

对抗健康不平等的概念方法:范围综述方案。

Conceptual approaches in combating health inequity: A scoping review protocol.

机构信息

Takemi Program in International Health, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University, Boston, MA, United States of America.

Dalla Lana School of Public Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2023 Mar 15;18(3):e0282858. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0282858. eCollection 2023.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

What are the different ways in which health equity can be sought through policy and programs? Although there is a central focus on health equity in global and public health, we recognize that stakeholders can understand health equity as taking different approaches and that there is not a single conceptual approach. However, information on conceptual categories of actions to improve health equity and/or reduce health inequity is scarce. Therefore, this study asks the research question: "what conceptual approaches exist in striving for health equity and/or reducing health inequity?" with the aim of presenting a comprehensive overview of approaches.

METHODS

A scoping review will be undertaken following the PRISMA guidelines for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) and in consultation with a research librarian. Both the peer-reviewed and grey literatures will be searched using: Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus, PAIS Index (ProQuest), JSTOR, Canadian Public Documents Collection, the World Health Organization IRIS (Institutional Repository for Information Sharing), and supplemented by a Google Advanced Search. Screening will be conducted by two independent reviewers and data will be charted, coded, and narratively synthesized.

DISCUSSION

We anticipate developing a foundational document compiling categories of approaches and discussing the nuances inherent in each conceptualization to promote clarified and united action.

摘要

简介

通过政策和项目追求健康公平有哪些不同的方式?尽管全球和公共卫生都将健康公平作为重点,但我们认识到利益相关者可以理解健康公平采取不同的方法,而且不存在单一的概念方法。然而,关于改善健康公平和/或减少健康不公平的行动的概念性类别信息很少。因此,本研究提出了一个研究问题:“在追求健康公平和/或减少健康不公平方面存在哪些概念性方法?”目的是全面概述这些方法。

方法

将按照 PRISMA 范围审查指南(PRISMA-ScR)并与研究图书馆员协商进行范围审查。将使用:Ovid MEDLINE、Scopus、PAIS Index(ProQuest)、JSTOR、加拿大公共文件集、世界卫生组织 IRIS(信息共享机构知识库)以及 Google 高级搜索对同行评审文献和灰色文献进行搜索。筛选将由两名独立审查员进行,数据将进行图表、编码和叙述性综合。

讨论

我们预计将编制一份基础性文件,汇编方法类别,并讨论每个概念化中固有的细微差别,以促进明确和统一的行动。

相似文献

9
Social prescribing for children and youth: A scoping review protocol.社交处方用于儿童和青少年:范围综述方案。
PLoS One. 2024 Mar 8;19(3):e0297535. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0297535. eCollection 2024.

引用本文的文献

1
Best practices of judicial governance: A scoping review protocol.司法治理的最佳实践:一项范围综述方案。
PLoS One. 2025 Aug 28;20(8):e0329904. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0329904. eCollection 2025.

本文引用的文献

4
Evaluating healthy cities: A scoping review protocol.评估健康城市:范围综述方案
PLoS One. 2022 Oct 20;17(10):e0276179. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0276179. eCollection 2022.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验