通过全科实践减少健康不平等:现实主义审查和行动框架。

Anna Gkiouleka, Geoff Wong, Sarah Sowden, Isla Kuhn, Annie Moseley, Sukaina Manji, Rebecca R Harmston, Rikke Siersbaek, Clare Bambra, John A Ford
{"title":"通过全科实践减少健康不平等:现实主义审查和行动框架。","authors":"Anna Gkiouleka, Geoff Wong, Sarah Sowden, Isla Kuhn, Annie Moseley, Sukaina Manji, Rebecca R Harmston, Rikke Siersbaek, Clare Bambra, John A Ford","doi":"10.3310/YTWW7032","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Socio-economic inequalities in health have been in the public agenda for decades. General practice has an influential role to play in mitigating the impact of inequalities especially regarding chronic conditions. At the moment, general practice is dealing with serious challenges in relation to workforce shortages, increasing workload and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is important to identify effective ways so that general practice can play its role in reducing health inequalities.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We explored what types of interventions and aspects of routine care in general practice decrease or increase inequalities in health and care-related outcomes. We focused on cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. We explored for whom these interventions and aspects of care work best, why, and in what circumstances. Our main objective was to synthesise this evidence into specific guidance for healthcare professionals and decision-makers about how best to achieve equitable general practice.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Realist review.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Clinical or care-related outcomes by socio-economic group, or other PROGRESS-Plus criteria.</p><p><strong>Review methods: </strong>Realist review based on Pawson's five steps: (1) locating existing theories, (2) searching for evidence, (3) selecting articles, (4) extracting and organising data and (5) synthesising the evidence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three hundred and twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria and 159 of them were selected for the evidence synthesis. Evidence about the impact of general practice interventions on health inequalities is limited. To reduce health inequalities, general practice needs to be: • connected so that interventions are linked and coordinated across the sector; • intersectional to account for the fact that people's experience is affected by many of their characteristics; • flexible to meet patients' different needs and preferences; • inclusive so that it does not exclude people because of who they are; • community-centred so that people who receive care engage with its design and delivery. These qualities should inform action across four domains: structures like funding and workforce distribution, organisational culture, everyday regulated procedures involved in care delivery, interpersonal and community relationships.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>The reviewed evidence offers limited detail about the ways and the extent to which specific interventions increase or decrease inequalities in general practice. Therefore, we focused on the underpinning principles that were common across interventions to produce higher-level, transferrable conclusions about ways to achieve equitable care.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Inequalities in general practice result from complex processes across four different domains that include structures, ideas, regulated everyday procedures, and relationships among individuals and communities. To achieve equity, general practice needs to be connected, intersectional, flexible, inclusive and community-centred.</p><p><strong>Future work: </strong>Future work should focus on how these five essential qualities can be better used to shape the organisational development of future general practice.</p><p><strong>Study registration: </strong>This trial is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020217871.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR130694) and is published in full in <i>Health and Social Care Delivery Research</i>; Vol. 12, No. 7. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.</p>","PeriodicalId":73204,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reducing health inequalities through general practice: a realist review and action framework.\",\"authors\":\"Anna Gkiouleka, Geoff Wong, Sarah Sowden, Isla Kuhn, Annie Moseley, Sukaina Manji, Rebecca R Harmston, Rikke Siersbaek, Clare Bambra, John A Ford\",\"doi\":\"10.3310/YTWW7032\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Socio-economic inequalities in health have been in the public agenda for decades. General practice has an influential role to play in mitigating the impact of inequalities especially regarding chronic conditions. At the moment, general practice is dealing with serious challenges in relation to workforce shortages, increasing workload and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is important to identify effective ways so that general practice can play its role in reducing health inequalities.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We explored what types of interventions and aspects of routine care in general practice decrease or increase inequalities in health and care-related outcomes. We focused on cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. We explored for whom these interventions and aspects of care work best, why, and in what circumstances. Our main objective was to synthesise this evidence into specific guidance for healthcare professionals and decision-makers about how best to achieve equitable general practice.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Realist review.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Clinical or care-related outcomes by socio-economic group, or other PROGRESS-Plus criteria.</p><p><strong>Review methods: </strong>Realist review based on Pawson's five steps: (1) locating existing theories, (2) searching for evidence, (3) selecting articles, (4) extracting and organising data and (5) synthesising the evidence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three hundred and twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria and 159 of them were selected for the evidence synthesis. Evidence about the impact of general practice interventions on health inequalities is limited. To reduce health inequalities, general practice needs to be: • connected so that interventions are linked and coordinated across the sector; • intersectional to account for the fact that people's experience is affected by many of their characteristics; • flexible to meet patients' different needs and preferences; • inclusive so that it does not exclude people because of who they are; • community-centred so that people who receive care engage with its design and delivery. These qualities should inform action across four domains: structures like funding and workforce distribution, organisational culture, everyday regulated procedures involved in care delivery, interpersonal and community relationships.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>The reviewed evidence offers limited detail about the ways and the extent to which specific interventions increase or decrease inequalities in general practice. Therefore, we focused on the underpinning principles that were common across interventions to produce higher-level, transferrable conclusions about ways to achieve equitable care.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Inequalities in general practice result from complex processes across four different domains that include structures, ideas, regulated everyday procedures, and relationships among individuals and communities. To achieve equity, general practice needs to be connected, intersectional, flexible, inclusive and community-centred.</p><p><strong>Future work: </strong>Future work should focus on how these five essential qualities can be better used to shape the organisational development of future general practice.</p><p><strong>Study registration: </strong>This trial is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020217871.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR130694) and is published in full in <i>Health and Social Care Delivery Research</i>; Vol. 12, No. 7. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73204,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health and social care delivery research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health and social care delivery research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3310/YTWW7032\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health and social care delivery research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/YTWW7032","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:几十年来,健康方面的社会经济不平等问题一直被提上公共议程。全科医生在减轻不平等现象的影响,尤其是慢性病方面的影响方面发挥着重要作用。目前,全科医生正在应对劳动力短缺、工作量增加以及 COVID-19 大流行病影响等严峻挑战。重要的是要找出有效的方法,使全科医生在减少健康不平等方面发挥作用:我们探讨了全科医学中哪些类型的干预措施以及常规护理的哪些方面会减少或增加健康和护理相关结果的不平等。我们重点关注心血管疾病、癌症、糖尿病和/或慢性阻塞性肺病。我们探讨了这些干预措施和护理措施对谁最有效、为什么以及在什么情况下最有效。我们的主要目标是综合这些证据,为医疗保健专业人员和决策者提供具体指导,帮助他们了解如何最好地实现公平的全科实践:设计:现实主义评论:按社会经济群体或其他 PROGRESS-Plus 标准划分的临床或护理相关结果:现实主义评论基于 Pawson 的五个步骤:(审查方法:基于 Pawson 的五个步骤进行现实主义审查:(1)查找现有理论;(2)搜索证据;(3)选择文章;(4)提取和组织数据;(5)综合证据:结果:325 项研究符合纳入标准,其中 159 项被选中进行证据综合。有关全科医生干预措施对健康不平等的影响的证据非常有限。为减少健康不平等现象,全科医生需要- 相互连接,使整个部门的干预措施相互联系、相互协调; - 具有交叉性,考虑到人们的经历受到其许多特征的影响; - 具有灵活性,以满足患者的不同需求和偏好; - 具有包容性,不会因为患者的身份而将其排除在外; - 以社区为中心,使接受医疗服务的人们参与到服务的设计和提供中。这些品质应贯穿四个领域的行动:资金和劳动力分配等结构、组织文化、提供护理服务的日常规范程序、人际关系和社区关系:经审查的证据对特定干预措施增加或减少全科不平等的方式和程度提供的细节有限。因此,我们将重点放在各项干预措施的共同基本原则上,以便就实现公平护理的方法得出更高层次的、可转移的结论:全科医疗中的不平等现象源于四个不同领域的复杂过程,包括结构、观念、规范的日常程序以及个人和社区之间的关系。为实现公平,全科医疗需要具有关联性、交叉性、灵活性、包容性和以社区为中心:未来工作:未来工作的重点应是如何更好地利用这五个基本特质来塑造未来全科医学的组织发展:本试验注册为 PROSPERO CRD42020217871:该奖项由国家健康与护理研究所(NIHR)的健康与社会护理服务研究计划(NIHR奖项编号:NIHR130694)资助,全文发表于《健康与社会护理服务研究》第12卷第7期。更多奖项信息请参阅 NIHR Funding and Awards 网站。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Reducing health inequalities through general practice: a realist review and action framework.

Background: Socio-economic inequalities in health have been in the public agenda for decades. General practice has an influential role to play in mitigating the impact of inequalities especially regarding chronic conditions. At the moment, general practice is dealing with serious challenges in relation to workforce shortages, increasing workload and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is important to identify effective ways so that general practice can play its role in reducing health inequalities.

Objectives: We explored what types of interventions and aspects of routine care in general practice decrease or increase inequalities in health and care-related outcomes. We focused on cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. We explored for whom these interventions and aspects of care work best, why, and in what circumstances. Our main objective was to synthesise this evidence into specific guidance for healthcare professionals and decision-makers about how best to achieve equitable general practice.

Design: Realist review.

Main outcome measures: Clinical or care-related outcomes by socio-economic group, or other PROGRESS-Plus criteria.

Review methods: Realist review based on Pawson's five steps: (1) locating existing theories, (2) searching for evidence, (3) selecting articles, (4) extracting and organising data and (5) synthesising the evidence.

Results: Three hundred and twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria and 159 of them were selected for the evidence synthesis. Evidence about the impact of general practice interventions on health inequalities is limited. To reduce health inequalities, general practice needs to be: • connected so that interventions are linked and coordinated across the sector; • intersectional to account for the fact that people's experience is affected by many of their characteristics; • flexible to meet patients' different needs and preferences; • inclusive so that it does not exclude people because of who they are; • community-centred so that people who receive care engage with its design and delivery. These qualities should inform action across four domains: structures like funding and workforce distribution, organisational culture, everyday regulated procedures involved in care delivery, interpersonal and community relationships.

Limitations: The reviewed evidence offers limited detail about the ways and the extent to which specific interventions increase or decrease inequalities in general practice. Therefore, we focused on the underpinning principles that were common across interventions to produce higher-level, transferrable conclusions about ways to achieve equitable care.

Conclusions: Inequalities in general practice result from complex processes across four different domains that include structures, ideas, regulated everyday procedures, and relationships among individuals and communities. To achieve equity, general practice needs to be connected, intersectional, flexible, inclusive and community-centred.

Future work: Future work should focus on how these five essential qualities can be better used to shape the organisational development of future general practice.

Study registration: This trial is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020217871.

Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR130694) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 7. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Causes and solutions to workplace psychological ill-health for nurses, midwives and paramedics: the Care Under Pressure 2 realist review. Relationship between staff and quality of care in care homes: StaRQ mixed methods study. Practices of falls risk assessment and prevention in acute hospital settings: a realist investigation. Safer and more efficient vital signs monitoring protocols to identify the deteriorating patients in the general hospital ward: an observational study. Reducing health inequalities through general practice: a realist review and action framework.
×
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