Healthy Populations Institute, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada.
Faculty of Health, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada.
JBI Evid Synth. 2024 Jun 1;22(6):949-1070. doi: 10.11124/JBIES-23-00051.
The objective of this review was to describe how health service and delivery systems in high-income countries define and operationalize health equity. A secondary objective was to identify implementation strategies and indicators being used to integrate and measure health equity.
To improve the health of populations, a population health and health equity approach is needed. To date, most work on health equity integration has focused on reducing health inequities within public health, health care delivery, or providers within a health system, but less is known about integration across the health service and delivery system.
This review included academic and gray literature sources that described the definitions, frameworks, level of integration, strategies, and indicators that health service and delivery systems in high-income countries have used to describe, integrate, and/or measure health equity. Sources were excluded if they were not available in English (or a translation was not available), were published before 1986, focused on strategies that were not implemented, did not provide health equity indicators, or featured strategies that were implemented outside the health service or delivery systems (eg, community-based strategies).
This review was conducted in accordance with the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. Titles and abstracts were screened for eligibility followed by a full-text review to determine inclusion. The information extracted from the included studies consisted of study design and key findings, such as health equity definitions, strategies, frameworks, level of integration, and indicators. Most data were quantitatively tabulated and presented according to 5 secondary review questions. Some findings (eg, definitions and indicators) were summarized using qualitative methods. Most findings were visually presented in charts and diagrams or presented in tabular format.
Following review of 16,297 titles and abstracts and 824 full-text sources, we included 122 sources (108 scholarly and 14 gray literature) in this scoping review. We found that health equity was inconsistently defined and operationalized. Only 17 sources included definitions of health equity, and we found that both indicators and strategies lacked adequate descriptions. The use of health equity frameworks was limited and, where present, there was little consistency or agreement in their use. We found that strategies were often specific to programs, services, or clinics, rather than broadly applied across health service and delivery systems.
Our findings suggest that strategies to advance health equity work are siloed within health service and delivery systems, and are not currently being implemented system-wide (ie, across all health settings). Healthy equity definitions and frameworks are varied in the included sources, and indicators for health equity are variable and inconsistently measured. Health equity integration needs to be prioritized within and across health service and delivery systems. There is also a need for system-wide strategies to promote health equity, alongside robust accountability mechanisms for measuring health equity. This is necessary to ensure that an integrated, whole-system approach can be consistently applied in health service and delivery systems internationally.
DalSpace dalspace.library.dal.ca/handle/10222/80835.
本综述旨在描述高收入国家的卫生服务和提供系统如何定义和实施卫生公平性。次要目标是确定用于整合和衡量卫生公平性的实施策略和指标。
为了改善人口健康,需要采用人口健康和卫生公平方法。迄今为止,关于卫生公平性整合的大部分工作都集中在减少公共卫生、卫生保健提供或卫生系统内提供者内部的卫生不公平现象,但对卫生服务和提供系统内的整合知之甚少。
本综述纳入了描述高收入国家卫生服务和提供系统用于描述、整合和/或衡量卫生公平性的定义、框架、整合程度、策略和指标的学术和灰色文献来源。如果文献源不是英文(或没有英文翻译)、发表于 1986 年之前、重点介绍未实施的策略、未提供卫生公平性指标或重点介绍在卫生服务或提供系统之外实施的策略(例如,基于社区的策略),则将其排除在外。
本综述按照 JBI 范围综述方法进行。首先筛选标题和摘要以确定其是否符合纳入标准,然后进行全文审查以确定是否纳入。从纳入的研究中提取的信息包括研究设计和关键发现,例如卫生公平性定义、策略、框架、整合程度和指标。大多数数据以定量表格形式呈现,并根据 5 个二级综述问题进行呈现。一些发现(例如,定义和指标)采用定性方法进行总结。大多数发现以图表或表格形式呈现。
在审查了 16297 个标题和摘要以及 824 篇全文文献源后,我们纳入了本范围综述中的 122 篇文献源(108 篇学术文献和 14 篇灰色文献)。我们发现卫生公平性的定义和实施不一致。只有 17 篇文献源包含卫生公平性的定义,我们发现指标和策略都缺乏充分的描述。卫生公平性框架的使用有限,而且即使存在,其使用也很少一致或达成共识。我们发现策略通常针对特定的项目、服务或诊所,而不是广泛应用于卫生服务和提供系统。
我们的研究结果表明,促进卫生公平性的策略在卫生服务和提供系统内各自为政,目前并未在全系统范围内(即所有卫生环境)实施。纳入的文献源中卫生公平性定义和框架各不相同,卫生公平性指标也各不相同且测量不一致。卫生公平性整合需要在卫生服务和提供系统内以及系统之间得到优先考虑。还需要有全系统的策略来促进卫生公平性,并建立健全的卫生公平性衡量问责机制。这对于确保在国际上能够始终如一地应用综合的全系统方法来改善卫生服务和提供系统至关重要。
DalSpace dalspace.library.dal.ca/handle/10222/80835。