EQUALSS GUIDE Multiple: A novel framework for equity-focused evidence synthesis

IF 2.2 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Public Health in Practice Pub Date : 2025-02-15 DOI:10.1016/j.puhip.2025.100600
Lucy McCann , Lucy Johnson , Anna Gkiouleka , Helen Pearce , John Ford
{"title":"EQUALSS GUIDE Multiple: A novel framework for equity-focused evidence synthesis","authors":"Lucy McCann ,&nbsp;Lucy Johnson ,&nbsp;Anna Gkiouleka ,&nbsp;Helen Pearce ,&nbsp;John Ford","doi":"10.1016/j.puhip.2025.100600","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Understanding the differential effects of health and care interventions across disadvantaged groups is essential in addressing inequalities and avoiding inadvertently worsening them. Previous research has highlighted limitations with the existing PROGRESS-Plus framework. We aimed to develop a framework to allow researchers to synthesise evidence with an equity perspective.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>First, we re-analysed articles from the EQUALISE study, a review of interventions that increase or decrease inequalities in general practice, to explore the various domains of disadvantage examined in the included studies. We then compared these domains of disadvantage with the existing PROGRESS-Plus framework. Finally, we propose a new framework to support equity-focused evidence synthesis.</div></div><div><h3>Findings</h3><div>From the 325 studies included in EQUALISE, the most commonly assessed PROGRESS-Plus domains were sex/gender (53%), ethnicity/race (50%), and age (44%). The PROGRESS-Plus framework did not include explict mention of context-specific groups, those with multiple intersecting disadvantage, and people who experience disability. Building on PROGRESS-Plus, our new framework EQUALSS GUIDE Multiple includes: Ethnicity and race, Qualifications and education, Underserved area, Age, Language and religion, Sex, Sexual orientation, Gender identification, Underrepresented groups (inclusion groups), Income and wealth, Disability (physical, mental and learning), Employment and occupation, and Multiple disadvantage.</div></div><div><h3>Interpretation</h3><div>EQUALSS GUIDE Multiple builds on PROGRESS-Plus to encapsulate key domains of disadvantage while allowing for context-specific flexibility. Examining the effectiveness of policy and practice interventions by disadvantaged groups is paramount to prioritise actions that narrow the health gap and prevent actions which widen inequalities.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":34141,"journal":{"name":"Public Health in Practice","volume":"9 ","pages":"Article 100600"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Health in Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666535225000199","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Understanding the differential effects of health and care interventions across disadvantaged groups is essential in addressing inequalities and avoiding inadvertently worsening them. Previous research has highlighted limitations with the existing PROGRESS-Plus framework. We aimed to develop a framework to allow researchers to synthesise evidence with an equity perspective.

Methods

First, we re-analysed articles from the EQUALISE study, a review of interventions that increase or decrease inequalities in general practice, to explore the various domains of disadvantage examined in the included studies. We then compared these domains of disadvantage with the existing PROGRESS-Plus framework. Finally, we propose a new framework to support equity-focused evidence synthesis.

Findings

From the 325 studies included in EQUALISE, the most commonly assessed PROGRESS-Plus domains were sex/gender (53%), ethnicity/race (50%), and age (44%). The PROGRESS-Plus framework did not include explict mention of context-specific groups, those with multiple intersecting disadvantage, and people who experience disability. Building on PROGRESS-Plus, our new framework EQUALSS GUIDE Multiple includes: Ethnicity and race, Qualifications and education, Underserved area, Age, Language and religion, Sex, Sexual orientation, Gender identification, Underrepresented groups (inclusion groups), Income and wealth, Disability (physical, mental and learning), Employment and occupation, and Multiple disadvantage.

Interpretation

EQUALSS GUIDE Multiple builds on PROGRESS-Plus to encapsulate key domains of disadvantage while allowing for context-specific flexibility. Examining the effectiveness of policy and practice interventions by disadvantaged groups is paramount to prioritise actions that narrow the health gap and prevent actions which widen inequalities.
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
背景了解健康和护理干预措施对弱势群体的不同影响对于解决不平等问题和避免无意中加剧不平等至关重要。先前的研究强调了现有 PROGRESS-Plus 框架的局限性。方法首先,我们重新分析了 EQUALISE 研究中的文章,该研究是对普通实践中增加或减少不平等的干预措施的综述,以探索纳入研究中的各种不利领域。然后,我们将这些劣势领域与现有的 PROGRESS-Plus 框架进行了比较。研究结果在 EQUALISE 所纳入的 325 项研究中,最常评估的 PROGRESS-Plus 领域是性别(53%)、民族/种族(50%)和年龄(44%)。PROGRESS-Plus 框架没有明确提及特定背景群体、多重交叉不利处境群体和残疾人士。在 PROGRESS-Plus 的基础上,我们的新框架 EQUALSS GUIDE Multiple 包括以下内容:在 PROGRESS-Plus 的基础上,我们的新框架 EQUALSS GUIDE Multiple 包括:民族和种族、学历和教育、服务不足地区、年龄、语言和宗教、性别、性取向、性别认同、代表不足群体(包容群体)、收入和财富、残疾(身体、精神和学习)、就业和职业,以及多重不利条件。对弱势群体的政策和实践干预措施的有效性进行审查,对于优先采取缩小健康差距的行动和防止扩大不平等的行动至关重要。
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
Public Health in Practice
Public Health in Practice Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
117
审稿时长
71 days
期刊最新文献
A Canadian multi-province study of COVID-19 vaccine coverage along area-level social determinants in 2021 An analysis of systemic incident investigation methodologies applied in serious injury or fatality events: A rapid systematic review Facilitators and barriers to implement community engagement approaches in health promotion projects: A qualitative study in 13 projects in Spain Suspicion and other feelings about COVID-19 vaccines and mask-wearing among individuals recovering from substance addiction Feasibility study of the implementation of health promoting processes in a secondary school and ways to capture its impact on adolescent lifestyle choices
×
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