A systematic review of the factors - barriers and enablers - affecting the implementation of clinical commissioning policy to reduce health inequalities in the National Health Service (NHS), UK

Strategies and indicators to integrate health equity in health service and delivery systems in high-income countries: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this review was to describe how health service and delivery systems in high-income countries define and operationalize health equity. A secondary objective was to identify implementation strategies and indicators being used to integrate and measure health equity.

INTRODUCTION

To improve the health of populations, a population health and health equity approach is needed. To date, most work on health equity integration has focused on reducing health inequities within public health, health care delivery, or providers within a health system, but less is known about integration across the health service and delivery system.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

This review included academic and gray literature sources that described the definitions, frameworks, level of integration, strategies, and indicators that health service and delivery systems in high-income countries have used to describe, integrate, and/or measure health equity. Sources were excluded if they were not available in English (or a translation was not available), were published before 1986, focused on strategies that were not implemented, did not provide health equity indicators, or featured strategies that were implemented outside the health service or delivery systems (eg, community-based strategies).

METHODS

This review was conducted in accordance with the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. Titles and abstracts were screened for eligibility followed by a full-text review to determine inclusion. The information extracted from the included studies consisted of study design and key findings, such as health equity definitions, strategies, frameworks, level of integration, and indicators. Most data were quantitatively tabulated and presented according to 5 secondary review questions. Some findings (eg, definitions and indicators) were summarized using qualitative methods. Most findings were visually presented in charts and diagrams or presented in tabular format.

RESULTS

Following review of 16,297 titles and abstracts and 824 full-text sources, we included 122 sources (108 scholarly and 14 gray literature) in this scoping review. We found that health equity was inconsistently defined and operationalized. Only 17 sources included definitions of health equity, and we found that both indicators and strategies lacked adequate descriptions. The use of health equity frameworks was limited and, where present, there was little consistency or agreement in their use. We found that strategies were often specific to programs, services, or clinics, rather than broadly applied across health service and delivery systems.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that strategies to advance health equity work are siloed within health service and delivery systems, and are not currently being implemented system-wide (ie, across all health settings). Healthy equity definitions and frameworks are varied in the included sources, and indicators for health equity are variable and inconsistently measured. Health equity integration needs to be prioritized within and across health service and delivery systems. There is also a need for system-wide strategies to promote health equity, alongside robust accountability mechanisms for measuring health equity. This is necessary to ensure that an integrated, whole-system approach can be consistently applied in health service and delivery systems internationally.

REVIEW REGISTRATION

DalSpace dalspace.library.dal.ca/handle/10222/80835.

Telehealth Usage Among Low-Income Racial and Ethnic Minority Populations During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Retrospective Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Despite considerable efforts to encourage telehealth use during the COVID-19 pandemic, we witnessed a potential widening of health inequities that may continue to plague the US health care system unless we mitigate modifiable risk factors.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to examine the hypothesis that there are systemic differences in telehealth usage among people who live at or below 200% of the federal poverty level. Factors that we consider are age, gender, race, ethnicity, education, employment status, household size, and income.

METHODS

A retrospective observational study was performed using the COVID-19 Research Database to analyze factors contributing to telehealth inequities. The study period ranged from March 2020 to April 2021. The Office Ally database provided US claims data from 100 million unique patients and 3.4 billion claims. The Analytics IQ PeopleCore Consumer database is nationally representative of 242.5 million US adults aged 19 years and older. We analyzed medical claims to investigate the influence of demographic and socioeconomic factors on telehealth usage among the low-income racial and ethnic minority populations. We conducted a multiple logistic regression analysis to determine the odds of patients in diverse groups using telehealth during the study period.

RESULTS

Among 2,850,831 unique patients, nearly 60% of them were female, 75% of them had a high school education or less, 49% of them were unemployed, and 62% of them identified as non-Hispanic White. Our results suggest that 9.84% of the patients had ≥1 telehealth claims during the study period. Asian (odds ratio [OR] 1.569, 95% CI 1.528-1.611, P<.001) and Hispanic (OR 1.612, 95% CI 1.596-1.628, P<.001) patients were more likely to use telehealth than non-Hispanic White and -Black patients. Patients who were employed full-time were 15% (OR 1.148, 95% CI 1.133-1.164, P<.001) more likely to use telehealth than unemployed patients. Patients who identified as male were 12% (OR 0.875, 95% CI 0.867-0.883, P<.001) less likely to use telehealth than those who identified as female. Patients with high school education or less were 5% (OR 0.953, 95% CI 0.944-0.962, P<.001) less likely to use telehealth than those with a bachelor's degree or higher. Patients in the 18-44-year age group were 32% (OR 1.324, 95% CI 1.304-1.345, P<.001) more likely to use telehealth than those in the ≥65-year age group.

CONCLUSIONS

Factors that impact telehealth usage include age, gender, race, education, employment status, and income. While low-income racial and ethnic minority communities are at greater risk for health inequities among this group, Hispanic communities are more likely to use telehealth, and non-Hispanic Black patients continue to demonstrate telehealth inequity. Gender, age, and household income contribute to health inequities across gradients of poverty. Strategies to improve health use should consider characteristics of subgroups, as people do not experience poverty equally.

Implementation of medicines pricing policies in sub-Saharan Africa: systematic review

BACKGROUND

High medicine prices contribute to increasing cost of healthcare worldwide. Many patients with limited resources in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) are confronted with out-of-pocket charges, constraining their access to medicines. Different medicine pricing policies are implemented to improve affordability and availability; however, evidence on the experiences of implementations of these policies in SSA settings appears limited. Therefore, to bridge this knowledge gap, we reviewed published evidence and answered the question: what are the key determinants of implementation of medicines pricing policies in SSA countries?

METHODS

We identified policies and examined implementation processes, key actors involved, contextual influences on and impact of these policies. We searched five databases and grey literature; screening was done in two stages following clear inclusion criteria. A structured template guided the data extraction, and data analysis followed thematic narrative synthesis. The review followed best practices and reported using PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

Of the 5595 studies identified, 31 met the inclusion criteria. The results showed thirteen pricing policies were implemented across SSA between 2003 and 2020. These were in four domains: targeted public subsides, regulatory frameworks and direct price control, generic medicine policies and purchasing policies. Main actors involved were government, wholesalers, manufacturers, retailers, professional bodies, community members and private and public health facilities. Key contextual barriers to implementation were limited awareness about policies, lack of regulatory capacity and lack of price transparency in external reference pricing process. Key facilitators were favourable policy environment on essential medicines, strong political will and international support. Evidence on effectiveness of these policies on reducing prices of, and improving access to, medicines was mixed. Reductions in prices were reported occasionally, and implementation of medicine pricing policy sometimes led to improved availability and affordability to essential medicines.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of medicine pricing policies in SSA shows some mixed evidence of improved availability and affordability to essential medicines. It is important to understand country-specific experiences, diversity of policy actors and contextual barriers and facilitators to policy implementation. Our study suggests three policy implications, for SSA and potentially other low-resource settings: avoiding a 'one-size-fits-all' approach, engaging both private and public sector policy actors in policy implementation and continuously monitoring implementation and effects of policies.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020178166.

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.

Barriers and facilitators to implementation of non-medical independent prescribing in primary care in the UK: a qualitative systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To support workforce deficits and rising demand for medicines, independent prescribing (IP) by nurses, pharmacists and allied health professionals is a key component of workforce transformation in UK healthcare. This systematic review of qualitative research studies used a thematic synthesis approach to explore stakeholders' views on IP in primary care and identify barriers and facilitators influencing implementation.

SETTING

UK primary/community care.

PARTICIPANTS

Inclusion criteria were UK qualitative studies of any design, published in the English language. Six electronic databases were searched between January 2010 and September 2021, supplemented by reference list searching. Papers were screened, selected and quality-appraised using the Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs. Study data were extracted to a bespoke table and two reviewers used NVivo software to code study findings. An inductive thematic synthesis was undertaken to identify descriptive themes and interpret these into higher order analytical themes. The Diffusion of Innovations and Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research were guiding theoretical anchors.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

N/A.

RESULTS

Twenty-three articles addressing nurse, pharmacist and physiotherapist IP were included. Synthesis identified barriers and facilitators in four key stages of implementation: (1) 'Preparation', (2) 'Training', (3) 'Transition' and 4) 'Sustainment'. Enhancement, substitution and role-specific implementation models reflected three main ways that the IP role was used in primary care.

CONCLUSIONS

In order to address global deficits, there is increasing need to optimise use of IP capability. Although the number of independent prescribers continues to grow, numerous barriers to implementation persist. A more coordinated and targeted approach is key to overcoming barriers identified in the four stages of implementation and would help ensure that IP is recognised as an effective approach to help alleviate workforce shortfalls in the UK, and around the world.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019124400.

Health equity audits: a systematic review of the effectiveness

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this systematic review is to explore whether health equity audits (HEAs) are effective in improving the equity of service provision and reducing health inequalities.

DESIGN

Three databases (Ovid Medline, Embase, Web of Science) and grey literature (Opengrey, Google Scholar) were systematically searched for articles published after 2000, reporting on the effectiveness of HEA. Title and abstracts were screened according to an eligibility criteria to identify studies which included a full audit cycle (eg, initial equity analysis, service changes and review). Data were extracted from studies meeting the eligibility criteria after full text review and risk of bias assessed using the ROBINS-I tool.

RESULTS

The search strategy identified 596 articles. Fifteen records were reviewed in full text and three records were included in final review. An additional HEA report was identified through contact with an author. Three different HEAs were included from one peer-reviewed journal article, two published reports and one unpublished report (n=4 records on n=3 HEAs). This included 102 851 participants and over 148 practices/pharmacies (information was not recorded for all records). One study reviewed health equity impacts of HEA implementation in key indicators for coronary heart disease, type 2 diabetes and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Two HEAs explored Stop Smoking Services on programme access and equity. All reported some degree of reduction in health inequalities compared with prior HEA implementation. However, impact of HEA implementation compared with other concurrent programmes and initiatives was unclear. All included studies were judged to have moderate to serious risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

There is an urgent need to identify effective interventions to address health inequalities. While HEAs are recommended, we only identified limited weak evidence to support their use. More evidence is needed to explore whether HEA implementation can reduce inequalities and which factors are influencing effectiveness.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

The study was registered prior to its conduction in PROSPERO (CRD 42020218642).

GIS mapping of healthcare practices: do older adults have equitable access to dental and medical care in the UK?

Introduction Considering an ageing population with increasing comorbidities, access to oral and general healthcare is a growing concern. This study aimed to identify and compare access to dental and general practices. This study further aimed to ascertain if there exists a socioeconomic distribution of dental and general practices among older adults.Materials and methods A total of 13,007 dental practices and 13,759 general practices were mapped using geographic information system software, and overlaid with the UK older adult population and deprivation data by health areas. Data analysis was carried out by creating a geographical distribution map and by using descriptive statistics, Gini coefficients and Lorenz curves.Results NHS Central London Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) held the highest dental practice-to-population ratio of 958 practices per 100,000 older adults, while NHS Manchester CCG held the highest general practice-to-population ratio of 264.4 general practices per 100,000 older adults. England had the highest Gini coefficients for general and dental practice at 0.214 and 0.195, respectively. Both dental and general practices were socioeconomically distributed among older adults in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, but not in Scotland.Conclusions An increasing proportion of older adults need access to healthcare that is based on clinical need, not the ability to pay; a founding principle of the NHS. This nation-wide study captures inequities in the spatial accessibility for older adults in the UK.