Equity Lens on Canada's COVID-19 Response: Review of the Literature.

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES International Journal of Health Policy and Management Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-07 DOI:10.34172/ijhpm.2024.8132
Muhammad Haaris Tiwana, Julia Smith, Megan Kirby, Simran Purewal
{"title":"Equity Lens on Canada's COVID-19 Response: Review of the Literature.","authors":"Muhammad Haaris Tiwana, Julia Smith, Megan Kirby, Simran Purewal","doi":"10.34172/ijhpm.2024.8132","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A growing literature has documented how the secondary effects of the COVID-19 pandemic have compounded socioeconomic vulnerabilities already present in society, particularly across social categories such as gender, race, class, and socioeconomic status. Such effects demonstrate how pandemic response policies act as structural determinants of health to influence not only direct health outcomes but also intermediary outcomes, such as access to education or income.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This review aims to scope research that analyzes pandemic response policies in Canada from an equity perspective, to identify common themes, recommendations, and gaps.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fourteen studies were thematically analyzed, the majority being qualitative policy document analysis, applying critical frameworks and focused on effects on select priority populations. Analysis of economic and labour policies indicates a lack of consideration for the specific needs of priority populations, and those engaged in precarious, informal, and essential labour. Analysis of social policies illustrate the wide-ranging effects of school and service closures, particularly on women and children. Furthermore, these policies lacked consideration of populations marginalized during the pandemic, include older adults and their caregivers, as well as lack of consideration of the diversity of Indigenous communities. Recommendations proposed in this review call for developing policy responses that address persistent social and economic inequities, pandemic response policies tailored to the needs of priority populations and more meaningful consultation during policy development.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The limited number of studies suggests there is still much scope for research recognizing policies as structural determinants of health inequities, including research which takes an intersectional approach.</p>","PeriodicalId":14135,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Health Policy and Management","volume":"13 ","pages":"8132"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11270619/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Health Policy and Management","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.34172/ijhpm.2024.8132","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: A growing literature has documented how the secondary effects of the COVID-19 pandemic have compounded socioeconomic vulnerabilities already present in society, particularly across social categories such as gender, race, class, and socioeconomic status. Such effects demonstrate how pandemic response policies act as structural determinants of health to influence not only direct health outcomes but also intermediary outcomes, such as access to education or income.

Methods: This review aims to scope research that analyzes pandemic response policies in Canada from an equity perspective, to identify common themes, recommendations, and gaps.

Results: Fourteen studies were thematically analyzed, the majority being qualitative policy document analysis, applying critical frameworks and focused on effects on select priority populations. Analysis of economic and labour policies indicates a lack of consideration for the specific needs of priority populations, and those engaged in precarious, informal, and essential labour. Analysis of social policies illustrate the wide-ranging effects of school and service closures, particularly on women and children. Furthermore, these policies lacked consideration of populations marginalized during the pandemic, include older adults and their caregivers, as well as lack of consideration of the diversity of Indigenous communities. Recommendations proposed in this review call for developing policy responses that address persistent social and economic inequities, pandemic response policies tailored to the needs of priority populations and more meaningful consultation during policy development.

Conclusion: The limited number of studies suggests there is still much scope for research recognizing policies as structural determinants of health inequities, including research which takes an intersectional approach.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
加拿大 COVID-19 应对措施的公平视角:文献回顾。
背景:越来越多的文献记录了 COVID-19 大流行的次生效应如何加剧了社会中本已存在的社会经济脆弱性,尤其是在性别、种族、阶级和社会经济地位等社会类别中。这些影响表明,大流行病应对政策如何作为健康的结构性决定因素,不仅影响直接的健康结果,而且影响中间结果,如受教育机会或收入:本综述旨在从公平的角度分析加拿大大流行病应对政策的研究范围,以确定共同的主题、建议和差距:对 14 项研究进行了专题分析,其中大部分是定性政策文件分析,采用了关键框架,重点关注对特定优先人群的影响。对经济和劳动政策的分析表明,对重点人群以及从事不稳定、非正规和基本劳动的人群的特殊需求缺乏考虑。对社会政策的分析表明,学校和服务机构的关闭影响广泛,尤其是对妇女和儿童。此外,这些政策没有考虑到在大流行病期间被边缘化的人群,包括老年人及其照顾者,也没有考虑到土著社区的多样性。本综述提出的建议要求制定应对政策,解决长期存在的社会和经济不平等问题,制定符合重点人群需求的大流行应对政策,并在政策制定过程中进行更有意义的磋商:有限的研究表明,将政策视为健康不平等的结构性决定因素,包括采用交叉方法的研究,仍有很大的研究空间。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Health Policy and Management
International Journal of Health Policy and Management Health Professions-Health Information Management
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
14.30%
发文量
142
审稿时长
9 weeks
期刊介绍: International Journal of Health Policy and Management (IJHPM) is a monthly open access, peer-reviewed journal which serves as an international and interdisciplinary setting for the dissemination of health policy and management research. It brings together individual specialties from different fields, notably health management/policy/economics, epidemiology, social/public policy, and philosophy into a dynamic academic mix.
期刊最新文献
Why Are African Researchers Left Behind in Global Scientific Publications? - A Viewpoint. Grappling With the Inclusion of Patients and the Public in Consensus Building: A Commentary on Inclusion, Safety, and Accessibility; Comment on "Evaluating Public Participation in a Deliberative Dialogue: A Single Case Study". Phase IV Drug Trials With a Canadian Site: A Comparison of Industry and Non-Industry-Funded Trials. The Rhetoric of Decolonizing Global Health Fails to Address the Reality of Settler Colonialism. Gaza as a Case in Point. Building a Systems Map: Applying Systems Thinking to Unhealthy Commodity Industry Influence on Public Health Policy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1