• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

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.

DOI:10.1016/j.puhip.2025.100600
PMID:40104249
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11919437/
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/ef2d79d32dc4/gr2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/181f/11919437/d73f1fcb9a17/gr1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/181f/11919437/ef2d79d32dc4/gr2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/181f/11919437/d73f1fcb9a17/gr1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/181f/11919437/ef2d79d32dc4/gr2.jpg

相似文献

1
EQUALSS GUIDE Multiple: A novel framework for equity-focused evidence synthesis.EQUALSS指南多元性:一个以公平为重点的证据综合的新框架。
Public Health Pract (Oxf). 2025 Feb 15;9:100600. doi: 10.1016/j.puhip.2025.100600. eCollection 2025 Jun.
2
Exploring equity in primary-care-based physical activity interventions using PROGRESS-Plus: a systematic review and evidence synthesis.使用PROGRESS-Plus框架探索基于初级保健的身体活动干预中的公平性:一项系统评价和证据综合分析
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2016 May 20;13:60. doi: 10.1186/s12966-016-0384-8.
3
How effects on health equity are assessed in systematic reviews of interventions.在干预措施的系统评价中如何评估对健康公平性的影响。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Jan 18;1(1):MR000028. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000028.pub3.
4
A review of health equity considerations in Cochrane reviews of lifestyle interventions for cardiovascular health in adults.Cochrane系统评价中关于成人心血管健康生活方式干预的健康公平性考量综述
J Clin Epidemiol. 2024 Dec;176:111546. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111546. Epub 2024 Sep 27.
5
Is equity considered in systematic reviews of interventions for mitigating social isolation and loneliness in older adults?系统评价干预措施以减轻老年人社会隔离和孤独感时是否考虑公平性?
BMC Public Health. 2022 Dec 1;22(1):2241. doi: 10.1186/s12889-022-14667-8.
6
Impact of summer programmes on the outcomes of disadvantaged or 'at risk' young people: A systematic review.暑期项目对处境不利或“有风险”的年轻人的影响:一项系统综述。
Campbell Syst Rev. 2024 Jun 13;20(2):e1406. doi: 10.1002/cl2.1406. eCollection 2024 Jun.
7
mHealth Interventions to Support Caregivers of Older Adults: Equity-Focused Systematic Review.支持老年人照料者的移动健康干预措施:以公平为重点的系统评价。
JMIR Aging. 2022 Jul 8;5(3):e33085. doi: 10.2196/33085.
8
Reducing health inequalities through general practice: a realist review and action framework.通过全科医疗减少健康不平等:一个现实主义综述和行动框架。
Health Soc Care Deliv Res. 2024 Mar;12(7):1-104. doi: 10.3310/YTWW7032.
9
Impact of universal interventions on social inequalities in physical activity among older adults: an equity-focused systematic review.通用干预措施对老年人身体活动社会不平等的影响:一项以公平为重点的系统评价。
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2017 Feb 10;14(1):20. doi: 10.1186/s12966-017-0472-4.
10
A framework for identifying and mitigating the equity harms of COVID-19 policy interventions.确定和减轻 COVID-19 政策干预措施造成的公平损害的框架。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2020 Dec;128:35-48. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.06.004. Epub 2020 Jun 9.

引用本文的文献

1
Improving the reporting on health equity in observational research (STROBE-Equity): extension checklist and elaboration.改进观察性研究中健康公平性的报告(STROBE-公平性):扩展清单及阐述
BMJ. 2025 Sep 3;390:e083882. doi: 10.1136/bmj-2024-083882.
2
Writing about health inequality: recommendations for accurate and impactful presentation of evidence.撰写关于健康不平等的文章:准确且有影响力地呈现证据的建议。
Int J Equity Health. 2025 Sep 2;24(1):231. doi: 10.1186/s12939-025-02548-6.

本文引用的文献

1
Diagnostic Overshadowing of Psychological Disorders in People With Intellectual Disability: A Systematic Review.智力障碍者心理障碍的诊断遮蔽:系统评价。
Am J Intellect Dev Disabil. 2024 Mar 1;129(2):116-134. doi: 10.1352/1944-7558-129.2.116.
2
Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Reporting in Highly Cited Current Alcohol Research.高引当代酒精研究中的性取向和性别认同报告。
LGBT Health. 2024 Jul;11(5):340-347. doi: 10.1089/lgbt.2023.0085. Epub 2023 Oct 20.
3
Equity-focused evidence synthesis - A need to optimise our approach.
以公平为重点的证据综合——优化我们方法的必要性。
Public Health Pract (Oxf). 2023 Sep 14;6:100430. doi: 10.1016/j.puhip.2023.100430. eCollection 2023 Dec.
4
Reducing health inequalities through general practice.通过全科医疗减少健康不平等。
Lancet Public Health. 2023 Jun;8(6):e463-e472. doi: 10.1016/S2468-2667(23)00093-2.
5
How well do area-based deprivation indices identify income- and employment-deprived individuals across Great Britain today?如今,基于地区的贫困指数在多大程度上能够识别出英国各地收入和就业贫困的人群?
Public Health. 2023 Apr;217:22-25. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2023.01.020. Epub 2023 Feb 24.
6
A systematic review finds a lack of consensus in methodological approaches in health inequality/inequity focused reviews.一项系统评价发现,在关注健康不平等/不公平的综述中,方法学方法缺乏共识。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2023 Apr;156:76-84. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.02.013. Epub 2023 Feb 20.
7
A Systematic Review of Inequalities in the Mental Health Experiences of Black African, Black Caribbean and Black-mixed UK Populations: Implications for Action.一项关于英国黑非洲人、黑加勒比人和混血人群心理健康体验不平等的系统评价:对行动的启示。
J Racial Ethn Health Disparities. 2023 Aug;10(4):1669-1681. doi: 10.1007/s40615-022-01352-0. Epub 2022 Jun 29.
8
Gender- and Sexual Orientation- Based Inequities: Promoting Inclusion, Visibility, and Data Accuracy in Oncology.基于性别和性倾向的不平等:在肿瘤学中促进包容、可见度和数据准确性。
Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2022 Apr;42:1-17. doi: 10.1200/EDBK_350175.
9
Green Space and Health Equity: A Systematic Review on the Potential of Green Space to Reduce Health Disparities.绿色空间与健康公平性:关于绿色空间减少健康差距潜力的系统综述
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Mar 4;18(5):2563. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18052563.
10
Sex and gender: modifiers of health, disease, and medicine.性别与健康、疾病和医学。
Lancet. 2020 Aug 22;396(10250):565-582. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31561-0.