Suppr超能文献

EQUALSS指南多元性:一个以公平为重点的证据综合的新框架。

EQUALSS GUIDE Multiple: A novel framework for equity-focused evidence synthesis.

作者信息

McCann Lucy, Johnson Lucy, Gkiouleka Anna, Pearce Helen, Ford John

机构信息

Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.

出版信息

Public Health Pract (Oxf). 2025 Feb 15;9:100600. doi: 10.1016/j.puhip.2025.100600. eCollection 2025 Jun.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Understanding the differential effects of health and care interventions across disadvantaged groups is essential in addressing inequalities and avoiding inadvertently worsening them. Previous research has highlighted limitations with the existing PROGRESS-Plus framework. We aimed to develop a framework to allow researchers to synthesise evidence with an equity perspective.

METHODS

First, we re-analysed articles from the EQUALISE study, a review of interventions that increase or decrease inequalities in general practice, to explore the various domains of disadvantage examined in the included studies. We then compared these domains of disadvantage with the existing PROGRESS-Plus framework. Finally, we propose a new framework to support equity-focused evidence synthesis.

FINDINGS

From the 325 studies included in EQUALISE, the most commonly assessed PROGRESS-Plus domains were sex/gender (53%), ethnicity/race (50%), and age (44%). The PROGRESS-Plus framework did not include explict mention of context-specific groups, those with multiple intersecting disadvantage, and people who experience disability. Building on PROGRESS-Plus, our new framework EQUALSS GUIDE Multiple includes: Ethnicity and race, Qualifications and education, Underserved area, Age, Language and religion, Sex, Sexual orientation, Gender identification, Underrepresented groups (inclusion groups), Income and wealth, Disability (physical, mental and learning), Employment and occupation, and Multiple disadvantage.

INTERPRETATION

EQUALSS GUIDE Multiple builds on PROGRESS-Plus to encapsulate key domains of disadvantage while allowing for context-specific flexibility. Examining the effectiveness of policy and practice interventions by disadvantaged groups is paramount to prioritise actions that narrow the health gap and prevent actions which widen inequalities.

摘要

背景

了解健康和护理干预措施对弱势群体的不同影响,对于解决不平等问题以及避免无意中使其恶化至关重要。先前的研究突出了现有“PROGRESS-Plus”框架的局限性。我们旨在开发一个框架,使研究人员能够从公平的角度综合证据。

方法

首先,我们重新分析了“EQUALISE研究”中的文章,该研究是对增加或减少全科医疗中不平等现象的干预措施的综述,以探索纳入研究中所考察的各种劣势领域。然后,我们将这些劣势领域与现有的“PROGRESS-Plus”框架进行比较。最后,我们提出了一个新的框架来支持以公平为重点的证据综合。

研究结果

在“EQUALISE”纳入的325项研究中,最常评估的“PROGRESS-Plus”领域是性别(53%)、种族/民族(50%)和年龄(44%)。“PROGRESS-Plus”框架未明确提及特定背景群体、具有多重交叉劣势的群体以及残疾人士。在“PROGRESS-Plus”的基础上,我们的新框架“EQUALSS GUIDE Multiple”包括:种族和民族、资格与教育、服务不足地区、年龄、语言和宗教、性别、性取向、性别认同、代表性不足群体(纳入群体)、收入和财富、残疾(身体、精神和学习方面)、就业和职业以及多重劣势。

解读

“EQUALSS GUIDE Multiple”以“PROGRESS-Plus”为基础,涵盖了劣势的关键领域,同时允许根据具体情况灵活调整。审查弱势群体的政策和实践干预措施的有效性对于优先采取缩小健康差距的行动以及防止扩大不平等的行动至关重要。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/181f/11919437/d73f1fcb9a17/gr1.jpg

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