Public Health. 2024 Dec;237:307-315. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2024.10.009. Epub 2024 Nov 4.
Health inequities are unjust and avoidable differences in health outcomes across populations and between population groups. Though these arise predominantly from social determinants of health, healthcare is estimated to contribute around 20 % and primary healthcare reduces inequities in healthcare outcomes. As each provider works in their local context, we sought to provide an evidence-informed framework for designing, implementing, and evaluating local health inequity interventions in primary care.
Mixed methods approach: an integrative evidence review, a multidisciplinary Delphi consensus study and collaborative patient and public participation.
We searched published and grey literature for examples of primary care health inequity interventions. Our Delphi survey then asked primary care professionals how feasible and useful similar interventions would be in their local contexts. We incorporated an ongoing dialogue people with lived experience of health inequity in our design, implementation, and analysis.
Sixty-nine published papers and 19 grey literature papers were included. Interventions included multiple objectives (e.g., tailored provision, practitioner training) or focus (e.g., medical care, screening). Theory underpinning intervention design was rarely explicit but some specific tools and theory was identified for the framework. Practitioners and our patient group prioritised 28 example interventions to aid the design of local contextually sensitive interventions.
We combined evidence synthesis, practitioner consultation and dialogue with people with lived experience produced an evidence-informed framework for the design, implementation and evaluation of local primary care health inequity interventions. The public and practitioner voice increases the credibility of our framework as a useful tool for service development.
健康不平等是指人群之间和群体之间健康结果的不公平和可避免的差异。尽管这些差异主要源于健康的社会决定因素,但据估计,医疗保健贡献了约 20%,而初级保健则可以减少医疗保健结果中的不平等。由于每个提供者都在其当地环境中工作,我们试图为设计、实施和评估初级保健中的本地健康不平等干预措施提供一个循证框架。
混合方法:综合证据审查、多学科德尔菲共识研究和协作患者和公众参与。
我们搜索了已发表和灰色文献中的初级保健健康不平等干预措施的例子。我们的德尔菲调查随后询问了初级保健专业人员,类似的干预措施在他们的当地环境中实施的可行性和有用性。我们在设计、实施和分析中纳入了对经历过健康不平等的人的持续对话。
共纳入 69 篇已发表论文和 19 篇灰色文献。干预措施包括多个目标(例如,量身定制的服务提供、从业者培训)或重点(例如,医疗保健、筛查)。干预设计的理论基础很少明确,但为该框架确定了一些具体的工具和理论。从业者和我们的患者群体优先考虑了 28 个示例干预措施,以帮助设计针对当地情况的敏感干预措施。
我们将证据综合、从业者咨询和与有经验的人进行对话相结合,为设计、实施和评估本地初级保健健康不平等干预措施提供了一个循证框架。公众和从业者的声音增加了我们框架作为服务开发有用工具的可信度。