Health inequalities: the need for clarity in the confusion

A Crisis in the Health System and Quality of Healthcare in Economically Developed Countries

A health crisis caused by a pandemic tested the effectiveness of national healthcare systems by testing both financing and organizational and technical performance of patient care. At that time, the structural flaws in healthcare systems and inequalities in the level of healthcare in its different dimensions and countries due to resource constraints were highlighted. Therefore, the paper concentrates on investigating how the crisis in the health system affects the quality of healthcare services as a result of changes in the availability of financial, material, and human resources belonging to this system. The quantitative data, in terms of healthcare characterizing the OECD countries and selected non-member economies, treated as an example of economically developed regions, were chosen for the analysis. The study included five areas of resources, i.e., demographic, financial, human, technical, and the delivery of basic services in healthcare. T-test method for dependent samples, supplemented with Hedge's g statistics, was applied to test the differences between the mean values of individual indicators. The results indicate the occurrence of changes in some areas of the healthcare system due to a crisis. Identifying areas that are particularly vulnerable to sudden changes in the healthcare system helps to understand which resource areas need to be strategically managed first, as shifts in levels respond to deteriorating healthcare quality outcomes.

Conceptualisation of health inequalities by local healthcare systems: A document analysis

In 2019, local healthcare systems in England were asked to develop formal plans to reduce health inequalities. Here, we explore plans to understand how local healthcare systems conceptualise health inequalities and why. A broad Internet search and targeted search of NHS websites were conducted to identify all publicly accessible healthcare planning documents (National Health Service (NHS) Long-Term Plan (LTP) response documents) produced by local health partnerships in England. A thematic document analysis of the accessible plans was undertaken in NVivo by coding text relating to health inequalities. Of the 44 documents developed, 13 were publicly accessible. These 13 local plans were submitted to NHS England for review between September 2019 and January 2020 and averaged 167 pages (range: 41-273 pages). Only one document contained a chapter dedicated to health inequalities. After analysis, five themes were identified: (1) variation and (2) vagueness explained how health inequalities were conceptualised and (3) use of value judgements, (4) lack of prior conceptualisation and approach and (5) a lack of commitment to action in the documents to reduce health inequalities explained what led to the overall vagueness and variation. Local healthcare systems were found to conceptualise health inequalities in a vague and varying manner, and their conceptualisations did not reflect established health inequalities frameworks. A clear conceptual national framework for addressing health inequalities is needed to support local healthcare systems, so they can address health inequalities meaningfully and sustainably.

Reducing lifestyle risk behaviours in disadvantaged groups in high-income countries: A scoping review of systematic reviews

High prevalence of risk behaviours may exacerbate existing poor health in disadvantaged groups. We aimed to identify and bring together systematic reviews with a focus on reducing risk behaviours in disadvantaged groups and highlight where evidence is lacking. We searched MEDLINE and Embase up to October 2020, with supplementary searching in Epistemonikos and Health Systems Evidence. We included systematic reviews that reported behavioural outcomes and targeted smoking, excessive alcohol use, unhealthy diet, or physical inactivity in groups with the following characteristics: low income or low socio-economic status (SES), unemployed people, homeless people, care leavers, prisoners, refugees or asylum seeker, Gypsies, Travellers, or Roma, people with learning disabilities and people living in disadvantaged areas. Reviews that included primary studies from any high-income country were eligible. Reviews were mapped based on the disadvantaged group(s) and behaviour(s) targeted. Ninety-two reviews were included, with the majority (n = 63) focusing on people with low income or low SES. We identified gaps in the evidence for care leavers; Gypsies, Travellers, and Roma and limited evidence for refugees and unemployed people. Few reviews targeted alcohol use. There was limited evidence on barriers and facilitators to behaviour change. This suggests there is insufficient evidence to inform policy and practice and new reviews or primary studies may be required.

Reducing health inequalities through general practice: protocol for a realist review (EQUALISE)

INTRODUCTION

Healthcare organisations recognise the moral imperative to address inequalities in health outcomes but often lack an understanding of which types of interventions are likely to reduce them. This realist review will examine the existing evidence on the types of interventions or aspects of routine care in general practice that are likely to decrease or increase health inequalities (ie, inequality-generating interventions) across cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Our realist review will follow Pawson's five iterative stages. We will start by developing an initial programme theory based on existing theories and discussions with stakeholders. To navigate the large volume of literature, we will access the primary studies through the identification of published systematic reviews of interventions delivered in general practice across the four key conditions. We will examine the primary studies included within each systematic review to identify those reporting on inequalities across PROGRESS-Plus categories. We will collect data on a range of clinical outcomes including prevention, diagnosis, follow-up and treatment. The data will be synthesised using a realist logic of analysis. The findings will be a description and explanation of the general practice interventions which are likely to increase or decrease inequalities across the major conditions.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval is not required because this study does not include any primary research. The findings will be integrated into a series of guiding principles and a toolkit for healthcare organisations to reduce health inequalities. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and user-friendly summaries.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020217871.