Health equity audits: a systematic review of the effectiveness

Using Routine Data to Improve Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Health

The collection of sexual orientation in routine data, generated either from contacts with health services or in infrastructure data resources designed and collected for policy and research, has improved substantially in the United Kingdom in the last decade. Inclusive measures of gender and transgender status are now also beginning to be collected. This viewpoint considers current data collections, and their strengths and limitations, including accessing data, sample size, measures of sexual orientation and gender, measures of health outcomes, and longitudinal follow-up. The available data are considered within both sociopolitical and biomedical models of health for individuals who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or of other identities including nonbinary (LGBTQ+). Although most individual data sets have some methodological limitations, when put together, there is now a real depth of routine data for LGBTQ+ health research. This paper aims to provide a framework for how these data can be used to improve health and health care outcomes. Four practical analysis approaches are introduced-descriptive epidemiology, risk prediction, intervention development, and impact evaluation-and are discussed as frameworks for translating data into research with the potential to improve health.

What impact do self-referral and direct access pathways for patients have on health inequalities?

BACKGROUND

There is increasing interest in self-referral and direct access as alternatives pathways to care to improve patient access to specialist services. The impact of these pathways on health inequalities is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this systematic review is to explore the impact of self-referral and direct access pathways on inequalities in health care use.

DESIGN

Three databases (Ovid Medline, Embase, Web of Science) and grey literature were systematically searched for articles from January 2000 to February 2023, reporting on self-referral and direct access pathways to care. Title and abstracts were screened against eligibility criteria to identify studies that evaluated the impact on health inequalities. Data were extracted from eligible studies after full text review and a quality assessment was performed using the ROBINS-I tool.

RESULTS

The search strategy identified 2948 articles. Nineteen records were included, covering seven countries and six healthcare services. The impact of self-referral and direct access on inequalities was mixed, suggesting that the relationship is dependent on patient and system factors. Typically self-referral pathways and direct access pathways tend to widen health inequalities. White, younger, educated women from less deprived backgrounds are more likely to self-refer, exacerbating existing health inequalities.

CONCLUSIONS

Self-referral pathways risk widening health inequalities. Further research is required to understand the context-dependent mechanisms by which this can occur, explore ways to mitigate this and even narrow health inequalities, as well as understand the impact on the wider healthcare system.

Health equity guiding frameworks and indices in injury: A review of the literature

BACKGROUND

In early 2021, CDC released the CORE Health Equity Strategy, which resolves to integrate a comprehensive health equity approach to the work of the Agency. One priority of the Injury Center's Division of Injury Prevention is to move health equity research in injury forward. The purpose of this research is to perform an initial exploration of health equity guiding frameworks and indices to better understand which of these has been applied to injury research topics.

METHODS

A PubMed and CINAHL search of meta-analysis and systematic review articles was conducted from January 1998 through April 2022. Articles of any type and additional frameworks/indices were also identified from staff knowledge of the literature. Books were also considered, where accessible. The following areas were reviewed for each resource: population addressed, guiding framework/index, other health equity variables, gaps identified, and whether the articles addressed an injury topic.

FINDINGS

The PubMed/CINAHL search produced 230 articles, and an additional 29 articles and 8 books were added from previous knowledge of the literature, resulting in a total of 267 resources for review. There were 60 frameworks/indices compiled that were relevant to health equity. Out of all the resources, three reported on an injury topic and used the PROGRESS-Plus framework, the WHO Social Determinants of Health Conceptual Framework, and a social-ecological framework.

CONCLUSIONS

This study found there were many frameworks/indices for measuring health equity; however, there were few injury-related meta-analysis and systematic review articles. Some frameworks/indices may be more appropriate than others for measuring health equity in injury topic areas, depending on which social determinants of health (SDOHs) they address.

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

Measuring health equity in injury and other public health research areas can help build a foundation of evidence. Moving forward, injury researchers can consider the frameworks/indices identified through this study in their health equity injury research.