Wednesday, June 20, 2012

[EQ] Assessing the impact and effectiveness of intersectoral action on the social determinants of health and health equity

Assessing the impact and effectiveness of intersectoral action on the social determinants of health and health equity:
An expedited systematic review

Antigonish, Nova Scotia Canada: National Collaborating Centre for Determinants of Health, St. Francis Xavier University.

ISBN: 978-1-926823-12-6 -  NCCDH_CCNDS  – June 2012

Available online PDF [64p.] at: http://bit.ly/NSC5PE

“……This expedited systematic review is part of ongoing work at the NCCDH that explores “what works” to improve health equity through action on the social determinants of health.

The focus of this review is the effectiveness of intersectoral action as a public health practice to advance health equity.

The review summarizes the best available research evidence to support evidence-informed public health.
Research evidence is one component of information needed to inform decision-making in public health. Other important forms of information include practice-based experience and program evaluation, as well as factors about the local environment, priorities, and available resources.

Strengthening our understanding of the impact of intersectoral action on health equity will help to clarify how public health works with other sectors and to identify the tools and strategies that support this work……….”

 

Intersectoral action for health equity

What we did

“…..Using streamlined systematic review methods we sought out evidence on the impact of intersectoral action on health equity. Over a period of three months, we screened over 10,000 articles, selected articles that met our review criteria, critically appraised the included studies, and synthesized the findings.

What we found

The review includes 17 studies which met our criteria.

o        Few of these studies reported on interventions which address structural determinants of health. Interventions which focused on access to care and service delivery were more common.

o        The impact of intersectoral action is mixed, revealing a moderate effect to no effect on the social determinants of health. The evidence on the impact of intersectoral action on health equity is limited.

o        A number of tools and strategies such as project committees, funding, dedicated staff, and clear expectations of outcomes for the population of interest supported the initiation and implementation of intersectoral initiatives.

What we learned

Our findings support what others have noted – much of the literature on the social determinants of health to advance health equity is descriptive and there is less of an emphasis on interventions. There are many examples of intersectoral initiatives from across Canada and around the world, yet outcomes related to health, the social determinants of health, or policy for health equity are often not reported. Applying the expedited systematic review method to the extremely complex and context-specific nature of social determinants of health interventions has emphasized the lack of available high quality, rigorously evaluated evidence.

This review has strengthened our understanding of the impact of intersectoral action on health equity and helps us to clarify how public health organizations work with other sectors……….” [au]

 

CONTENTS

Background .

Research Question

Methods .

Literature Search .

Relevance .

Quality Assessment .

Data Extraction and Analysis

Findings .

Quality of Included Studies .

Systematic Review .

Primary Studies .

Population Health Approach to Reducing Health Inequities

Populations .

Intervention Settings .

How the Social Determinants of Health Are Addressed .

Relationships and Roles

Tools, Mechanisms, and Strategies for Initiation and Implementation

Discussion

Limitations

Conclusions .

Implications .

For Practice and Policy

For Research

References

Tables , Figure and Appendices .

Table 1 Quality Assessment Results .

Table 2 Characteristics of Included Studies .

Figure 1 Search Results .

Appendix 1 Search Strategy

Appendix 2 Grey Literature Search

 

 KMC/2012/SDE
Twitter
http://twitter.com/eqpaho


 *      *     *
This message from the Pan American Health Organization, PAHO/WHO, is part of an effort to disseminate
information Related to: Equity; Health inequality; Socioeconomic inequality in health; Socioeconomic
health differentials; Gender; Violence; Poverty; Health Economics; Health Legislation; Ethnicity; Ethics;
Information Technology - Virtual libraries; Research & Science issues.  [DD/ KMC Area]
Washington DC USA

“Materials provided in this electronic list are provided "as is". Unless expressly stated otherwise, the findings
and interpretations included in the Materials are those of the authors and not necessarily of The Pan American
Health Organization PAHO/WHO or its country members”.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PAHO/WHO Website
Equity List - Archives - Join/remove: http://listserv.paho.org/Archives/equidad.html
Twitter http://twitter.com/eqpaho


IMPORTANT: This transmission is for use by the intended
recipient and it may contain privileged, proprietary or
confidential information. If you are not the intended
recipient or a person responsible for delivering this
transmission to the intended recipient, you may not
disclose, copy or distribute this transmission or take
any action in reliance on it. If you received this transmission
in error, please dispose of and delete this transmission.

Thank you.

[EQ] Comparative Performance of Private and Public Healthcare Systems in Low- and Middle-Income Countries

Comparative Performance of Private and Public Healthcare Systems in Low- and Middle-Income Countries:
A Systematic Review

“…reevaluates the evidence relating to comparative performance of public versus private sector healthcare delivery in low- and middle-income countries….”


Sanjay Basu
1,2,3*, Jason Andrews 4, Sandeep Kishore 5, Rajesh Panjabi 6, David Stuckler 3,7


1 Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, California, United States of America, 2 Division of General Internal Medicine, San Francisco General Hospital, San Francisco, California, United States of America, 3 Department of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom, 4 Division of Infectious Diseases, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America, 5 Tri-Institutional MD-PhD Program, Weill Cornell Medical College/Rockefeller University/Sloan-Kettering Institute, New York, New York, United States of America, 6 Division of Global Health Equity, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America, 7 Department of Sociology, Cambridge University, Cambridge, United Kingdom
Academic Editor: Rachel Jenkins, King's College London, United Kingdom


PLoS Medicine – 19 June 2012 - Volume 9 -| Issue 6 - e1001244

Available online at: http://bit.ly/N6hOQM
           

“……Private sector healthcare delivery in low- and middle-income countries is sometimes argued to be more efficient, accountable, and sustainable than public sector delivery. Conversely, the public sector is often regarded as providing more equitable and evidence-based care. We performed a systematic review of research studies investigating the performance of private and public sector delivery in low- and middle-income countries.

Methods and Findings

Peer-reviewed studies including case studies, meta-analyses, reviews, and case-control analyses, as well as reports published by non-governmental organizations and international agencies, were systematically collected through large database searches, filtered through methodological inclusion criteria, and organized into six World Health Organization health system themes:
accessibility and responsiveness; quality; outcomes; accountability, transparency, and regulation; fairness and equity; and efficiency.

Of 1,178 potentially relevant unique citations, data were obtained from 102 articles describing studies conducted in low- and middle-income countries.

Comparative cohort and cross-sectional studies suggested that providers in the private sector more frequently violated medical standards of practice and had poorer patient outcomes, but had greater reported timeliness and hospitality to patients. Reported efficiency tended to be lower in the private than in the public sector, resulting in part from perverse incentives for unnecessary testing and treatment. Public sector services experienced more limited availability of equipment, medications, and trained healthcare workers.

When the definition of “private sector” included unlicensed and uncertified providers such as drug shop owners, most patients appeared to access care in the private sector; however, when unlicensed healthcare providers were excluded from the analysis, the majority of people accessed public sector care.
“Competitive dynamics” for funding appeared between the two sectors, such that public funds and personnel were redirected to private sector development, followed by reductions in public sector service budgets and staff.

Conclusions

Studies evaluated in this systematic review do not support the claim that the private sector is usually more efficient, accountable, or medically effective than the public sector; however, the public sector appears frequently to lack timeliness and hospitality towards patients….”

 KMC/2012/HSS
Twitter
http://twitter.com/eqpaho

 *      *     *
This message from the Pan American Health Organization, PAHO/WHO, is part of an effort to disseminate
information Related to: Equity; Health inequality; Socioeconomic inequality in health; Socioeconomic
health differentials; Gender; Violence; Poverty; Health Economics; Health Legislation; Ethnicity; Ethics;
Information Technology - Virtual libraries; Research & Science issues.  [DD/ KMC Area]
Washington DC USA

“Materials provided in this electronic list are provided "as is". Unless expressly stated otherwise, the findings
and interpretations included in the Materials are those of the authors and not necessarily of The Pan American
Health Organization PAHO/WHO or its country members”.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PAHO/WHO Website
Equity List - Archives - Join/remove: http://listserv.paho.org/Archives/equidad.html
Twitter http://twitter.com/eqpaho



IMPORTANT: This transmission is for use by the intended
recipient and it may contain privileged, proprietary or
confidential information. If you are not the intended
recipient or a person responsible for delivering this
transmission to the intended recipient, you may not
disclose, copy or distribute this transmission or take
any action in reliance on it. If you received this transmission
in error, please dispose of and delete this transmission.

Thank you.

[EQ] Measuring and Analyzing Health Care Disparities

Measuring and Analyzing Health Care Disparities

Health Services Research - Volume 47, Issue 3pt2, June 2012

Edited by: Jacqueline S. Zinn and  José J. Escarce

Published on behalf of Health Research and Educational Trust in cooperation with AcademyHealth

Website: http://bit.ly/KK7q6g

This special issue of Health Services Research is devoted to highlighting challenges in the measurement of disparities in health care and exploring innovative approaches to address these challenges. The articles in this issue arose from a conference on “Methodological and Conceptual Issues in the Measurement of Healthcare Disparities” convened at Harvard University in February 2010.

This conference was jointly organized by the Center for Multicultural Mental Health Research of the Cambridge Health Alliance through a Disparity Center funded by the National Institute of Mental Health and by the Health Disparities Research Program of Harvard Catalyst. The conference featured presentations and multidisciplinary dialog among researchers who assess health care disparities from multiple perspectives, including health services research, economics, sociology, biostatistics, medicine, and public health.

The articles in this special issue have three primary themes:
(1) measurement challenges when examining and evaluating mechanisms of health care disparities from diverse disciplinary perspectives;
(2) recent innovations in disparities measurement and analytic methods; and
(3) recommendations to health services researchers for measuring and tracking health care disparities in diverse contexts

Content:

Taking the Measure of Health Care Disparities

Margarita Alegria, Romana Hasnain-Wynia and John Z. Ayanian

Measuring Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Health Care: Methods and Practical Issues

Benjamin Lê Cook, Thomas G. McGuire and Alan M. Zaslavsky

Integrating Multiple Social Statuses in Health Disparities Research: The Case of Lung Cancer

David R. Williams, Emily Z. Kontos, K. Viswanath, Jennifer S. Haas, Christopher S. Lathan, Laura E. MacConaill, Jarvis Chen and John Z. Ayanian

Elucidating the Role of Place in Health Care Disparities: The Example of Racial/Ethnic Residential Segregation

Kellee White, Jennifer S. Haas and David R. Williams

The Validity of Race and Ethnicity in Enrollment Data for Medicare Beneficiaries

Alan M. Zaslavsky, John Z. Ayanian and Lawrence B. Zaborski

The Impact of Insurance Coverage in Diminishing Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Behavioral Health Services

Margarita Alegria, Julia Lin, Chih-Nan Chen, Naihua Duan, Benjamin Cook and Xiao-Li Meng

Lessons from the Use of Vignettes in the Study of Mental Health Service Disparities

Sheri Lapatin, Marta Gonçalves, Anna Nillni, Ligia Chavez, Roxana Llerena Quinn, Alexander Green and Margarita Alegría

A Systematic Review of Community-Based Participatory Research
to Enhance Clinical Trials in Racial and Ethnic Minority Groups

Denise De Las Nueces, Karen Hacker, Ann DiGirolamo and LeRoi S. Hicks

Looking to the Future:
Incorporating Genomic Information into Disparities Research to Reduce Measurement Error and Selection Bias

Alexandra E. Shields and William H. Crown

 

 KMC/2012/SDE
Twitter
http://twitter.com/eqpaho

 *      *     *
This message from the Pan American Health Organization, PAHO/WHO, is part of an effort to disseminate
information Related to: Equity; Health inequality; Socioeconomic inequality in health; Socioeconomic
health differentials; Gender; Violence; Poverty; Health Economics; Health Legislation; Ethnicity; Ethics;
Information Technology - Virtual libraries; Research & Science issues.  [DD/ KMC Area]
Washington DC USA

“Materials provided in this electronic list are provided "as is". Unless expressly stated otherwise, the findings
and interpretations included in the Materials are those of the authors and not necessarily of The Pan American
Health Organization PAHO/WHO or its country members”.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PAHO/WHO Website
Equity List - Archives - Join/remove: http://listserv.paho.org/Archives/equidad.html
Twitter http://twitter.com/eqpaho