Smith Brendan T, Warren Christine M, Rosella Laura C, Smith Maxwell J
Public Heath Ontario, 480 University Avenue, Suite 300, Toronto, ON, M5G 1V2, Canada.
Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 155 College St Room 500, Toronto, ON, M5T 3M7, Canada.
SSM Popul Health. 2023 Aug 2;24:101481. doi: 10.1016/j.ssmph.2023.101481. eCollection 2023 Dec.
Health inequities are differences in health that are 'unjust'. Yet, despite competing ethical views about what counts as an 'unjust difference in health', theoretical insights from ethics have not been systematically integrated into epidemiological research. Using diabetes as an example, we explore the impact of adopting different ethical standards of health equity on population health outcomes. Specifically, we explore how the implementation of population-level weight-loss interventions using different ethical standards of equity impacts the intervention's implementation and resultant population health outcomes. We conducted a risk prediction modelling study using the nationally representative 2015-16 Canadian Community Health Survey (n = 75,044, 54% women). We used the Diabetes Population Risk Tool (DPoRT) to calculate individual-level 10-year diabetes risk. Hypothetical weight-loss interventions were modelled in individuals with overweight or obesity based on each ethical standard: 1) health sufficiency (reduce DPoRT risk below a high-risk threshold (16.5%); 2) health equality (equalize DPoRT risk to the low risk group (5%)); 3) social-health sufficiency (reduce DPoRT risk <16.5 in individuals with lower education); 4) social-health equality (equalize DPoRT risk to the level of individuals with high education). For each scenario, we calculated intervention impacts, diabetes cases prevented or delayed, and relative and absolute educational inequities in diabetes. Overall, we estimated that achieving health sufficiency (i.e., all individuals below the diabetes risk threshold) was more feasible than achieving health equality (i.e., diabetes risk equalized for all individuals), requiring smaller initial investments and fewer interventions; however, fewer diabetes cases were prevented or delayed. Further, targeting only diabetes inequalities related to education reduced the target population size and number of interventions required, but consequently resulted in even fewer diabetes cases prevented or delayed. Using diabetes as an example, we found that an explicit, ethically-informed definition of health equity is essential to guide population-level interventions that aim to reduce health inequities.
健康不平等是指那些“不公正”的健康差异。然而,尽管对于什么算作“不公正的健康差异”存在相互竞争的伦理观点,但伦理学的理论见解尚未系统地融入流行病学研究。以糖尿病为例,我们探讨采用不同的健康公平伦理标准对人群健康结果的影响。具体而言,我们研究使用不同公平伦理标准实施人群层面的减肥干预措施如何影响干预措施的实施以及由此产生的人群健康结果。我们利用具有全国代表性的2015 - 16年加拿大社区健康调查(n = 75,044,54%为女性)开展了一项风险预测建模研究。我们使用糖尿病人群风险工具(DPoRT)来计算个体层面的10年糖尿病风险。基于每种伦理标准,对超重或肥胖个体的假设减肥干预措施进行建模:1)健康充足性(将DPoRT风险降低至高危阈值以下(16.5%));2)健康平等性(将DPoRT风险均衡至低风险组水平(5%));3)社会 - 健康充足性(将受教育程度较低个体的DPoRT风险降低至<16.5);4)社会 - 健康平等性(将DPoRT风险均衡至高教育程度个体的水平)。对于每种情况,我们计算了干预影响、预防或延缓的糖尿病病例数以及糖尿病方面的相对和绝对教育不平等。总体而言,我们估计实现健康充足性(即所有个体低于糖尿病风险阈值)比实现健康平等性(即所有个体的糖尿病风险均衡)更可行,所需的初始投资和干预措施更少;然而,预防或延缓的糖尿病病例数更少。此外,仅针对与教育相关的糖尿病不平等现象会缩小目标人群规模和所需干预措施的数量,但结果是预防或延缓的糖尿病病例数甚至更少。以糖尿病为例,我们发现对健康公平进行明确的、基于伦理的定义对于指导旨在减少健康不平等的人群层面干预措施至关重要。