Directing Research Toward Health Equity: a Health Equity Research Impact Assessment

Socioeconomic disparities in the postnatal growth of preterm infants: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effect of parental socioeconomic status (SES) on the postnatal growth of preterm infants.

METHODS

A systematic review (PROSPERO registration CRD42020225714) of original articles from Medline, Embase, CINAHL Plus and Web of Science published 1946-2023 was undertaken. Studies were included if they reported anthropometric growth outcomes for preterm infants according to parental SES. Data extraction and assessments of bias and health equity impact were conducted using custom-designed forms.

RESULTS

A narrative synthesis of twelve included studies was performed. Most infants were moderate to late preterm. The settings, growth outcomes, timings of growth measurement, and SES measures were heterogenous. Six studies demonstrated an adverse effect of low parental SES on the extrauterine growth of preterm infants, five studies showed no effect, and one study showed a potentially beneficial effect. All studies had a high risk of bias, especially confounding and selection bias. The health equity impact of included studies was largely negative.

CONCLUSION

Limited and low-quality evidence suggests that socioeconomic minoritisation may adversely impact the growth of preterm infants, thereby widening existing socioeconomic health inequities. Observational studies informed by theorisation of the mechanistic pathways linking socioeconomic minoritisation to adverse postnatal growth are required to identify targets for intervention.

IMPACT

Limited evidence suggests low parental socioeconomic status (SES) adversely affects the postnatal growth of preterm infants across different settings. Early growth of preterm infants predicts neurodevelopmental outcomes and the risk of cardiovascular and metabolic disease in adulthood. Systematic screening of over 15,000 articles identified only twelve studies which reported postnatal growth outcomes for preterm infants according to parental SES. The health equity impact of the included studies was systematically assessed, and found to be negative overall. This study highlights limitations in existing evidence on the association between parental SES and postnatal growth, and delineates avenues for future research.

Advancing genomics to improve health equity

Health equity is the state in which everyone has fair and just opportunities to attain their highest level of health. The field of human genomics has fallen short in increasing health equity, largely because the diversity of the human population has been inadequately reflected among participants of genomics research. This lack of diversity leads to disparities that can have scientific and clinical consequences. Achieving health equity related to genomics will require greater effort in addressing inequities within the field. As part of the commitment of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) to advancing health equity, it convened experts in genomics and health equity research to make recommendations and performed a review of current literature to identify the landscape of gaps and opportunities at the interface between human genomics and health equity research. This Perspective describes these findings and examines health equity within the context of human genomics and genomic medicine.

Education Scholarship Assessment Reconsidered: Expansion of Glassick's Criteria to Incorporate Health Equity

ABSTRACT

Recent events have ignited widespread attention to structural racism and implicit bias throughout the U.S. health care system and medical institutions, resulting in a call for antiracism approaches to advance health equity. Medical education leaders are well positioned to advance health equity, not only through their training of fellows, residents, and medical students, but also in their approach to scholarship. Education scholarship drives innovation and critical evaluation of current practices; it impacts and intersects with multiple factors that have the potential to reduce health inequities. Thus, it is critical to prioritize the assessment of education scholarship through a health equity lens. Medical education scholarly dissemination has markedly expanded over the past 2 to 3 decades, yet medical educators have continued to embrace Boyer's and Glassick and colleagues' definitions of scholarship. The authors propose an approach to medical education scholarship assessment that expands each of Glassick's 6 existing criteria to address health inequities and adds health equity as a seventh criterion. With this, medical educators, researchers, reviewers, and others can consider how education scholarship affects diverse populations and settings, direct educational products and scholarship to address health inequities, and raise the importance of advancing health equity in medical education scholarship. By expanding and standardizing the assessment of scholarship to incorporate health equity, the medical education community can foster a cultural shift that brings health equity to the forefront of education scholarship.

Motivations for investigating health inequities in observational epidemiology: a content analysis of 320 studies

OBJECTIVES

To enhance equity in clinical and epidemiological research, it is crucial to understand researcher motivations for conducting equity-relevant studies. Therefore, we evaluated author motivations in a randomly selected sample of equity-relevant observational studies published during the COVID-19 pandemic.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We searched MEDLINE for studies from 2020 to 2022, resulting in 16,828 references. We randomly selected 320 studies purposefully sampled across income setting (high vs low-middle-income), COVID-19 topic (vs non-COVID-19), and focus on populations experiencing inequities. Of those, 206 explicitly mentioned motivations which we analyzed thematically. We used discourse analysis to investigate the reasons behind emerging motivations.

RESULTS

We identified the following motivations: (1) examining health disparities, (2) tackling social determinants to improve access, and (3) addressing knowledge gaps in health equity. Discourse analysis showed motivations stem from commitments to social justice and recognizing the importance of highlighting it in research. Other discourses included aspiring to improve health-care efficiency, wanting to understand cause-effect relationships, and seeking to contribute to an equitable evidence base.

CONCLUSION

Understanding researchers' motivations for assessing health equity can aid in developing guidance that tailors to their needs. We will consider these motivations in developing and sharing equity guidance to better meet researchers' needs.

Palliative and End-of-Life Care Interventions with Minoritized Populations in the US with Serious Illness: A Scoping Review

INTRODUCTION

Over the past 20 years, palliative care in the United States has grown significantly. Yet, access to and/or engagement with palliative care for minoritized persons with serious illness remains limited. In addition, the focus of palliative and end-of-life care research has not historically focused on equity-informed intervention development that collaborates directly with minoritized populations. Equity-informed interventions within palliative and end-of-life care research have the potential to champion collaborations with persons with serious illness and their families to mitigate health inequities. The purpose of this scoping review was to examine and describe the literature on the approaches used in the design and development of palliative and end-of-life care interventions with minoritized populations with serious illness.

METHODS

The Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews was followed for tracking and reporting purposes. Included articles were described quantitatively and analyzed qualitatively with content analysis.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven articles met the inclusion criteria: eight used quantitative methods, eight used qualitative methods, ten reported a community-based participatory research method, nine used mixed-methods, and two had research designs that could not be determined. The qualitative analysis revealed three themes: (1) stakeholder involvement and feedback, (2) intervention focus, and (3) target intervention population (population vs healthcare clinician).

CONCLUSIONS

Using an equity-informed research approach is vital to improve palliative and end-of-life care interventions for minoritized communities with serious illness. There is also a need for more robust publishing guidelines related to community-based participatory research methods to ensure publication consistency among research teams that employ this complex research method.

National patterns in the use of International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Health Related Problems, tenth revision Z codes in ambulatory surgery from 2016 to 2019

BACKGROUND

In the tenth revision of the International Statistical Classification of Disease and Health Related Problems (ICD-10), Z codes were added to improve documentation and understanding of health-related social needs. We estimated national Z code use in the ambulatory surgery setting from 2016 to 2019.

METHODS

Using the Nationwide Ambulatory Surgery Sample (NASS), we identified encounters for ambulatory surgery with an ICD-10 code between Z55.0 and Z65.9. Data were stratified by Z code domains from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).

RESULTS

This analysis of 41,827 ambulatory surgery encounters with documented Z codes found that the most documented determinants of health related to multiparity or unwanted pregnancy, homelessness, and incarceration. There was a 16.1% increase in the use of Z codes from 2016 to 2019.

CONCLUSION

Rates of Z code use in the ambulatory surgery setting are increasing with current documentation serving as a specific but not sensitive measure of socioeconomic need.

Toward standardization, harmonization, and integration of social determinants of health data: A Texas Clinical and Translational Science Award institutions collaboration

Introduction

The focus on social determinants of health (SDOH) and their impact on health outcomes is evident in U.S. federal actions by Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and Office of National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. The disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on minorities and communities of color heightened awareness of health inequities and the need for more robust SDOH data collection. Four Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs comprising the Texas Regional CTSA Consortium (TRCC) undertook an inventory to understand what contextual-level SDOH datasets are offered centrally and which individual-level SDOH are collected in structured fields in each electronic health record (EHR) system potentially for all patients.

Methods

Hub teams identified American Community Survey (ACS) datasets available via their enterprise data warehouses for research. Each hub's EHR analyst team identified structured fields available in their EHR for SDOH using a collection instrument based on a 2021 PCORnet survey and conducted an SDOH field completion rate analysis.

Results

One hub offered ACS datasets centrally. All hubs collected eleven SDOH elements in structured EHR fields. Two collected Homeless and Veteran statuses. Completeness at four hubs was 80%-98%: Ethnicity, Race; < 10%: Education, Financial Strain, Food Insecurity, Housing Security/Stability, Interpersonal Violence, Social Isolation, Stress, Transportation.

Conclusion

Completeness levels for SDOH data in EHR at TRCC hubs varied and were low for most measures. Multiple system-level discussions may be necessary to increase standardized SDOH EHR-based data collection and harmonization to drive effective value-based care, health disparities research, translational interventions, and evidence-based policy.

Dynamic evolution and spatial difference of public health service supply in economically developed provinces of China: typical evidence from Guangdong Province

OBJECTIVE

The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic has drawn attention from all sectors of society to the level of public health services. This study aims to investigate the level of public health service supply in the four major regions of Guangdong Province, providing a basis for optimizing health resource allocation.

METHODS

This article uses the entropy method and panel data of 21 prefecture-level cities in Guangdong Province from 2005 to 2021 to construct the evaluation index system of public health service supply and calculate its supply index. On this basis, the standard deviation ellipse method, kernel density estimation, and Markov chain are used to analyze the spatiotemporal evolution trend of the public health service supply level in Guangdong Province. The Dagum Gini coefficient and panel regression model are further used to analyze the relative differences and the key influencing factors of difference formation. Finally, the threshold effect model is used to explore the action mechanism of the key factors.

RESULTS

Overall, the level of public health service supply in Guangdong Province is on an upward trend. Among them, polarization and gradient effects are observed in the Pearl River Delta and Eastern Guangdong regions; the balance of public health service supply in Western Guangdong and Northern Mountainous areas has improved. During the observation period, the level of public health services in Guangdong Province shifted towards a higher level with a smaller probability of leapfrogging transition, and regions with a high level of supply demonstrated a positive spillover effect. The overall difference, intra-regional difference and inter-regional difference in the level of public health service supply in Guangdong Province during the observation period showed different evolutionary trends, and spatial differences still exist. These differences are more significantly positively affected by factors such as the level of regional economic development, the degree of fiscal decentralization, and the urbanization rate. Under different economic development threshold values, the degree of fiscal decentralization and urbanization rate both have a double threshold effect on the role of public health service supply level.

CONCLUSION

The overall level of public health service supply in Guangdong Province has improved, but spatial differences still exist. Key factors influencing these differences include the level of regional economic development, the degree of fiscal decentralization, and the urbanization rate, all of which exhibit threshold effects. It is suggested that, in view of the actual situation of each region, efforts should be made to build and maintain their own advantages, enhance the spatial linkage of public health service supply, and consider the threshold effects of key factors in order to optimize the allocation of health resources.

From study plans to capacity building: a journey towards health equity in cancer survivorship

This article highlights the importance of pausing and reflecting on one's motivation, capacity, and positionality when engaging in health equity research and encourages researchers to engage in critical self-reflection and contribute to the ongoing dialogue on the ethical conduct of health equity-focused cancer research. In response to the urgent need to address health disparities and improve health equity in cancer survivorship care, the Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) Survivorship workgroup discussed developing a study focused on understanding how racism impacts patient engagement in cancer survivorship care. However, during the study's development, the workgroup recognized limitations in research team composition and infrastructure. The workgroup engaged in critical self-reflections, individually and collectively, leading to the halting of the research study. Consequently, they redirected their efforts towards strengthening the necessary infrastructure for conducting such research, including diverse investigator representation and equitable partnerships with cancer survivors. The description of this process, along with suggestions for reflection, may be helpful and informative to other researchers and research networks seeking to center marginalized voices and work in partnership to address healthcare and health equity.

Representativeness in health research studies: an audit of Greater Manchester Clinical Research Network studies between 2016 and 2021

BACKGROUND

There are increasing concerns that participants in health research in the UK are not representative of the UK population, risking widening health inequities. However, detailed information on the magnitude of the problem is limited. Therefore, we evaluated if the health research conducted in the Greater Manchester region was broadly representative of its diverse population.

METHODS

We conducted an audit of all health  research studies conducted exclusively in Greater Manchester, using data from a national research network. Two researchers selected studies that were (1) an interventional or observational study of a health outcome; (2) 'closed' for recruitment between May 2016 and May 2021 and (3) human research. They extracted study information (dates, contacts, sample recruited, clinical speciality). Participant characteristics were sourced from published and unpublished manuscripts and requested directly from principal investigators and named study contacts. Data were extracted, summarised and compared to the Greater Manchester population for the following metrics: ethnicity, sex, age, deprivation and smoking status. A weighted mean age estimate was calculated to account for variation in age reporting. Too few studies provided patient-level deprivation data so, using the area code of the recruitment site, the area level multiple deprivation, health deprivation and disability index and decile was derived. These data were geo-mapped using QGIS 3.26.

RESULTS

Overall, 145/153 (95%) studies met inclusion criteria and participant information was sourced for 85/145 (59%) studies, representing 21,797 participants. Participant information was incomplete for all metrics. Where ethnicity (N = 10,259) data were available and compared to Greater Manchester estimates there was evidence that ethnic minorities were under-represented (6% versus 16%). Most of the recruitment occurred in central Manchester (50%) and with NHS hospital settings (74%).

CONCLUSIONS

Greater Manchester health research in 2016-2021 was centralised and under-represented ethnic minorities. We could not report which ethnic minority group was least represented because sourcing detailed participant information was challenging. Recommendations to improve the reporting of key participant characteristics with which to monitor representativeness in health research are discussed.

Doing community-based research during dual public health emergencies (COVID and overdose)

Meaningful engagement and partnerships with people who use drugs are essential to conducting research that is relevant and impactful in supporting desired outcomes of drug consumption as well as reducing drug-related harms of overdose and COVID-19. Community-based participatory research is a key strategy for engaging communities in research that directly affects their lives. While there are growing descriptions of community-based participatory research with people who use drugs and identification of key principles for conducting research, there is a gap in relation to models and frameworks to guide research partnerships with people who use drugs. The purpose of this paper is to provide a framework for research partnerships between people who use drugs and academic researchers, collaboratively developed and implemented as part of an evaluation of a provincial prescribed safer supply initiative introduced during dual public health emergencies (overdose and COVID-19) in British Columbia, Canada. The framework shifts from having researchers choose among multiple models (advisory, partnership and employment) to incorporating multiple roles within an overall community-based participatory research approach. Advocacy by and for drug users was identified as a key role and reason for engaging in research. Overall, both academic researchers and Peer Research Associates benefited within this collaborative partnerships approach. Each offered their expertise, creating opportunities for omni-directional learning and enhancing the research. The shift from fixed models to flexible roles allows for a range of involvement that accommodates varying time, energy and resources. Facilitators of involvement include development of trust and partnering with networks of people who use drugs, equitable pay, a graduate-level research assistant dedicated to ongoing orientation and communication, technical supports as well as fluidity in roles and opportunities. Key challenges included working in geographically dispersed locations, maintaining contact and connection over the course of the project and ensuring ongoing sustainable but flexible employment.

Advancing family science and health equity through the 2022-2026 National Institute of Nursing Research strategic plan

BACKGROUND

Consistent with the National Institute of Nursing Research's mission of leading nursing research to address current health challenges, the new Strategic Plan identifies five research lenses: health equity, social determinants of health, population and community health, prevention and health promotion, and systems and models of care. Family research, central to nursing research and practice, is the cornerstone of social ecology and represents a critical intersection of social and structural determinants of health.

PURPOSE

We argue why family health is essential to the 2022-2026 Strategic Plan and how the lenses can strengthen family research.

METHODS

Drawing from collective expertise and existing literature in family research, sociology, psychology, and nursing science, the authors present a new conceptual model that integrates structural racism and heteropatriarchy to examine the salience of family structure statuses for family outcomes and discuss approaches to research design, empirical measurement, and interpretation in order to bring this new model into practice.

DISCUSSION

The NINR Strategic Plan has the potential to dismantle structures that perpetuate racism and health inequity within and across family structures. An underaddressed research area under the new Strategic Plan relates to how social determinants of health influence and are influenced by families.

CONCLUSION

We challenge all investigators, not just family scientists, to expand the scope of their research to conceptualize the role of family on health inequities.

Perspective: Developing Future Veterans Affairs Scientists Through a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Program

For >95 years, the Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Research and Development (ORD) has been improving the lives of Veterans and all Americans through health care discovery and innovation. Scientists and trainees from diverse backgrounds and life experiences bring different perspectives and creativity to address complex health-related problems, which helps to foster scientific innovation, improve quality of research, and advance the likelihood that underserved populations participate in and benefit from clinical and health services research. In this study, we will discuss our experiences in developing future scientists through mentored research supplements supported by ORD.

Understanding the Context for Incorporating Equity into Quality Improvement Throughout a National Health Care System

Purpose

Although health care systems aspire to deliver equitable care, practical tools that empower the health care workforce to weave equity throughout quality improvement (QI) processes are lacking. In this article, we report findings from context of use interviews that informed the development of a user-centered tool to support equity-focused QI.

Methods

Semistructured interviews were conducted from February to April of 2019. Participants included 14 medical center administrators, departmental or service line leaders, and clinical staff involved in direct patient care from three Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Centers within a single region. Interviews covered existing practices for monitoring health care quality (i.e., priorities, tasks, workflow, and resources) and explored how equity data might fit into current processes. Themes extracted through rapid qualitative analysis were used to draft initial functional requirements for a tool to support equity-focused QI.

Results

Although the potential value of examining disparities in health care quality was clearly recognized, the data necessary for examining disparities were lacking for most quality measures. Interviewees also desired guidance on how inequities could be addressed through QI. The ways in which QI initiatives were selected, carried out, and supported also had important design implications for tools to support equity-focused QI.

Discussion

The themes identified in this work guided the development of a national VA Primary Care Equity Dashboard to support equity-focused QI within VA. Understanding the ways in which QI was carried out across multiple levels of the organization provided a successful foundation upon which to build functional tools to support thoughtful engagement around equity in clinical settings.

Mapping the distribution of health equity research and practice across a university: a network analysis

Introduction

Health equity research spans various disciplines, crossing formal organizational and departmental barriers and forming invisible communities. This study aimed to map the nomination network of scholars at the University of Rochester Medical Center who were active in racial and ethnic health equity research, education, and social/administrative activities, to identify the predictors of peer recognition.

Methods

We conducted a snowball survey of faculty members with experience and/or interest in racial and ethnic health equity, nominating peers with relevant expertise.

Results

Data from a total of 121 individuals (64% doing research on extent and outcomes of racial/ethnic disparities and racism, 48% research on interventions, 55% education, and 50% social/administrative activities) were gathered in six rounds of survey. The overlap between expertise categories was small with coincidence observed between education and social/administrative activities (kappa: 0.27; p < 0.001). Respondents were more likely to nominate someone if both were involved in research (OR: 3.1), if both were involved in education (OR: 1.7), and if both were affiliated with the same department (OR: 3.7). Being involved in health equity research significantly predicted the centrality of an individual in the nomination network, and the most central actors were involved in multiple expertise categories.

Conclusions

Compared with equity researchers, those involved in racial equity social/administrative activities were less likely to be recognized by peers as equity experts.

Equity within AI systems: What can health leaders expect?

Artificial Intelligence (AI) for health has a great potential; it has already proven to be successful in enhancing patient outcomes, facilitating professional work and benefiting administration. However, AI presents challenges related to health equity defined as an opportunity for people to reach their fullest health potential. This article discusses the opportunities and challenges that AI presents in health and examines ways in which inequities related to AI can be mitigated.

Patient Perspectives and Preferences for Consent in the Digital Health Context: State-of-the-art Literature Review

BACKGROUND

The increasing integration of digital health tools into care may result in a greater flow of personal health information (PHI) between patients and providers. Although privacy legislation governs how entities may collect, use, or share PHI, such legislation has not kept pace with digital health innovations, resulting in a lack of guidance on implementing meaningful consent. Understanding patient perspectives when implementing meaningful consent is critical to ensure that it meets their needs. Consent for research in the context of digital health is limited.

OBJECTIVE

This state-of-the-art review aimed to understand the current state of research as it relates to patient perspectives on digital health consent. Its objectives were to explore what is known about the patient perspective and experience with digital health consent and provide recommendations on designing and implementing digital health consent based on the findings.

METHODS

A structured literature search was developed and deployed in 4 electronic databases-MEDLINE, IEEE Xplore, Scopus, and Web of Science-for articles published after January 2010. The initial literature search was conducted in March 2021 and updated in March 2022. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they discussed electronic consent or consent, focused on the patient perspective or preference, and were related to digital health or digital PHI. Data were extracted using an extraction template and analyzed using qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 75 articles were included for analysis. Most studies were published within the last 5 years (58/75, 77%) and conducted in a clinical care context (33/75, 44%) and in the United States (48/75, 64%). Most studies aimed to understand participants' willingness to share PHI (25/75, 33%) and participants' perceived usability and comprehension of an electronic consent notice (25/75, 33%). More than half (40/75, 53%) of the studies did not describe the type of consent model used. The broad open consent model was the most explored (11/75, 15%). Of the 75 studies, 68 (91%) found that participants were willing to provide consent; however, their consent behaviors and preferences were context-dependent. Common patient consent requirements included clear and digestible information detailing who can access PHI, for what purpose their PHI will be used, and how privacy will be ensured.

CONCLUSIONS

There is growing interest in understanding the patient perspective on digital health consent in the context of providing clinical care. There is evidence suggesting that many patients are willing to consent for various purposes, especially when there is greater transparency on how the PHI is used and oversight mechanisms are in place. Providing this transparency is critical for fostering trust in digital health tools and the innovative uses of data to optimize health and system outcomes.

Research translation: A pathway for health inequity

In a context of social inequity, research translation naturally furthers health inequity. As Fundamental Cause Theory (FCT) explains-and an associated empirical literature illustrates-those with more resources benefit earlier and more from scientific innovation than those with fewer resources. Therefore, research translation of its own course creates and widens health disparities based on socioeconomic status and race/ethnicity. Yet, the conversation about research translation has yet to center this critical reality, undermining our efforts to address heath inequity. Moving toward sustainable health equity requires that we build the evidence base for, prioritize, and institutionalize translation approaches that center the needs and assets of low-resource populations (with community engagement helping toward that end). However, even the impact of that approach will be limited if we as a society do not mobilize knowledge to address social inequity and the many ways in which it shapes health. The health research community should engage the FCT paradigm to think critically about resource allocation among different kinds of research and action. Moreover, in our contributions to discussions about the road to health equity, we must be forthcoming about the reality FCT describes and the limitations it indicates for achieving health equity through translation of biomedical, clinical, health services, and health behavior research alone.

Social Isolation and Psychosis: Perspectives from People with Psychosis, Family Caregivers and Mental Health Professionals

This paper explores the subjective experiences of mental health practitioners, people with psychosis and carers, on social isolation and community integration of people with psychosis. Focus groups and one-to-one interviews with 80 adult participants across three sites in the UK were conducted. Audio recordings were transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis. Participants commented on various aspects that may cause social isolation or enable community integration, including institutional factors (lack of resources, hospitalisation impact), illness symptoms (e.g., paranoia; over-pathologising vs individual choice), stigma (particularly the psychosis label), and the importance of communities that foster agency and embrace change. Hospitalisation maybe be a cause for isolation and psychiatric wards should consider allowing for socialisation as a therapeutic tool. Initiatives should consider the social fabric of our communities, socioeconomic inequalities and stigmatisation. Building communities that are accepting, kind and flexible can create opportunities that could lead to independence from mental health services.

Spatial distribution, regional differences, and dynamic evolution of the medical and health services supply in China

The imbalance of medical and health services supply (MHSS) is a significant public health concern as regional economic development disparities widen in China. Based on the provincial panel data of medical and health services, this paper constructed an evaluation index system and used the two-stage nested entropy method to measure the MHSS level of 31 provinces in China from 2005 to 2020. Then we used the standard deviation ellipse, Dagum Gini coefficient, β convergence model, kernel density estimation and Markov chain to investigate the spatial distribution, regional differences, and dynamic evolution of MHSS. According to the results of these analysis, the conclusions are drawn as follows: (1) In general, the MHSS level in China showed a significant up-ward trend from 2005 to 2020. However, the MHSS level among different provinces showed a non-equilibrium characteristic. (2) Regional comparison shows that the eastern region had the highest level, and the central region had the lowest level. The eastern and central regions presented polarization, while the western region showed unremarkable gradient effect. (3) During the period, the overall regional differences, intra-regional differences, and inter-regional differences of MHSS level all showed convergence. (4) The economic development, urbanization rate, fiscal self-sufficiency rate, and foreign direct investment had significant impacts on the convergence. (5) The provinces with high levels had the positive spillover effect. The findings of this paper provide theoretical supports for optimizing the allocation of health resources and improving the equity of MHSS.

How Do We Define and Measure Health Equity? The State of Current Practice and Tools to Advance Health Equity

INTRODUCTION

Healthy People establishes national goals and specific measurable objectives to improve the health and well-being of the nation. An overarching goal of Healthy People 2030 is to "eliminate health disparities, achieve health equity, and attain health literacy to improve the health and well-being of all." To inform Healthy People 2030 health equity and health disparities content and products, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (ODPHP), in collaboration with NORC at the University of Chicago, conducted a review of peer-reviewed and gray literature to examine how health equity is defined, conceptualized, and measured by public health professionals.

METHODS

We reviewed (1) peer-reviewed literature, (2) HHS and other public health organization Web sites, and (3) state and territorial health department plans. We also conducted targeted searches of the gray literature to identify tools and recommendations for measuring health equity.

RESULTS

While definitions of health equity identified in the scan varied, they often addressed similar concepts, including "highest level of health for all people," "opportunity for all," and "absence of disparities." Measuring health equity is challenging; however, strategies to measure and track progress toward health equity have emerged. There are a range of tools and resources that have the potential to help decision makers address health equity, such as health impact assessments, community health improvement plans, and adapting a Health in All Policies approach. Tools that visualize health equity data also support data-driven decision making.

DISCUSSION

Using similar language when discussing health equity will help align and advance efforts to improve health and well-being for all. Healthy People objectives, measures, and targets can help public health professionals advance health equity in their work. HHS ODPHP continues to develop Healthy People tools and resources to support public health professionals as they work with cross-sector partners to achieve health equity.

Assessing researchers' capabilities, opportunities, and motivation to conduct equity-oriented dissemination and implementation research, an exploratory cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

A recent paradigm shift has led to an explicit focus on enhancing health equity through equity-oriented dissemination and implementation (D&I) research. However, the integration and bidirectional learning across these two fields is still in its infancy and siloed. This exploratory study aimed to examine participants' perceived capabilities, opportunities, and motivations to conduct equity-oriented D&I research.

METHODS

We conducted an exploratory cross-sectional survey distributed online from December 2020 to April 2021. Participants were recruited at either D&I or health disparities-oriented conferences, meetings, through social media, or personal outreach via emails. Informed by the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation Model (COM-B), the survey queried respondents about different aspects of engaging in and conducting equity-oriented D&I research. All analyses were conducted in SPSS Version 27.0.

RESULTS

A total of 180 participants responded to the survey. Most participants were women (81.7%), white (66.1%), academics (78.9%), and faculty members (53.9%). Many reported they were advanced (36.7%) or advanced beginners (27.8%) in the D&I field, and a substantial proportion (37.8%) reported being novice in D&I research that focused on health equity. Participants reported high motivation (e.g., 62.8% were motivated to apply theories, models, frameworks for promoting health equity in D&I research), but low capability to conduct equity-oriented D&I research (e.g., 5% had the information needed for promoting health equity in D&I research). Most participants (62.2%) reported not having used measures to examine equity in their D&I projects, and for those who did use measures, they mainly used individual-level measures (vs. organizational- or structural-level measures). When asked about factors that could influence their ability to conduct equity-oriented D&I research, 44.4% reported not having the skills necessary, and 32.2% stated difficulties in receiving funding for equity-oriented D&I research.

CONCLUSIONS

Study findings provide empirical insight into the perspectives of researchers from different backgrounds on what is needed to conduct equity-oriented D&I research. These data suggest the need for a multi-pronged approach to enhance the capability and opportunities for conducting equity-oriented D&I work, such as: training specifically in equity-oriented D&I, collaboration between D&I researchers with individuals with expertise and lived experience with health equity research, funding for equity-oriented D&I research, and recognition of the value of community engaged research in promotion packages.