Ben Jackson, Caroline Mitchell, Joanne Coster, Tom Lawy, Chris Burton, Josephine Reynolds, Munira Essat, Anna Cantrell, Mark Clowes, Steven Ariss
{"title":"FAIRSTEPS 研究 - 利用利益相关者视角解决初级保健中不平等问题的框架:综合证据审查和德尔菲共识","authors":"Ben Jackson, Caroline Mitchell, Joanne Coster, Tom Lawy, Chris Burton, Josephine Reynolds, Munira Essat, Anna Cantrell, Mark Clowes, Steven Ariss","doi":"10.1016/j.puhe.2024.10.009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>Health inequities are unjust and avoidable differences in health outcomes across populations and between population groups. Though these arise predominantly from social determinants of health, healthcare is estimated to contribute around 20 % and primary healthcare reduces inequities in healthcare outcomes. As each provider works in their local context, we sought to provide an evidence-informed framework for designing, implementing, and evaluating local health inequity interventions in primary care.</div></div><div><h3>Study design</h3><div>Mixed methods approach: an integrative evidence review, a multidisciplinary Delphi consensus study and collaborative patient and public participation.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We searched published and grey literature for examples of primary care health inequity interventions. Our Delphi survey then asked primary care professionals how feasible and useful similar interventions would be in their local contexts. We incorporated an ongoing dialogue people with lived experience of health inequity in our design, implementation, and analysis.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Sixty-nine published papers and 19 grey literature papers were included. Interventions included multiple objectives (e.g., tailored provision, practitioner training) or focus (e.g., medical care, screening). Theory underpinning intervention design was rarely explicit but some specific tools and theory was identified for the framework. Practitioners and our patient group prioritised 28 example interventions to aid the design of local contextually sensitive interventions.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>We combined evidence synthesis, practitioner consultation and dialogue with people with lived experience produced an evidence-informed framework for the design, implementation and evaluation of local primary care health inequity interventions. The public and practitioner voice increases the credibility of our framework as a useful tool for service development.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49651,"journal":{"name":"Public Health","volume":"237 ","pages":"Pages 307-315"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"FAIRSTEPS study - Framework Addressing Inequities in pRimary care using STakEholder PerspectiveS: Integrative evidence review and Delphi consensus\",\"authors\":\"Ben Jackson, Caroline Mitchell, Joanne Coster, Tom Lawy, Chris Burton, Josephine Reynolds, Munira Essat, Anna Cantrell, Mark Clowes, Steven Ariss\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.puhe.2024.10.009\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>Health inequities are unjust and avoidable differences in health outcomes across populations and between population groups. Though these arise predominantly from social determinants of health, healthcare is estimated to contribute around 20 % and primary healthcare reduces inequities in healthcare outcomes. As each provider works in their local context, we sought to provide an evidence-informed framework for designing, implementing, and evaluating local health inequity interventions in primary care.</div></div><div><h3>Study design</h3><div>Mixed methods approach: an integrative evidence review, a multidisciplinary Delphi consensus study and collaborative patient and public participation.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We searched published and grey literature for examples of primary care health inequity interventions. Our Delphi survey then asked primary care professionals how feasible and useful similar interventions would be in their local contexts. We incorporated an ongoing dialogue people with lived experience of health inequity in our design, implementation, and analysis.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Sixty-nine published papers and 19 grey literature papers were included. Interventions included multiple objectives (e.g., tailored provision, practitioner training) or focus (e.g., medical care, screening). Theory underpinning intervention design was rarely explicit but some specific tools and theory was identified for the framework. Practitioners and our patient group prioritised 28 example interventions to aid the design of local contextually sensitive interventions.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>We combined evidence synthesis, practitioner consultation and dialogue with people with lived experience produced an evidence-informed framework for the design, implementation and evaluation of local primary care health inequity interventions. The public and practitioner voice increases the credibility of our framework as a useful tool for service development.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49651,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Public Health\",\"volume\":\"237 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 307-315\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Public Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0033350624004207\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0033350624004207","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
FAIRSTEPS study - Framework Addressing Inequities in pRimary care using STakEholder PerspectiveS: Integrative evidence review and Delphi consensus
Objectives
Health inequities are unjust and avoidable differences in health outcomes across populations and between population groups. Though these arise predominantly from social determinants of health, healthcare is estimated to contribute around 20 % and primary healthcare reduces inequities in healthcare outcomes. As each provider works in their local context, we sought to provide an evidence-informed framework for designing, implementing, and evaluating local health inequity interventions in primary care.
Study design
Mixed methods approach: an integrative evidence review, a multidisciplinary Delphi consensus study and collaborative patient and public participation.
Methods
We searched published and grey literature for examples of primary care health inequity interventions. Our Delphi survey then asked primary care professionals how feasible and useful similar interventions would be in their local contexts. We incorporated an ongoing dialogue people with lived experience of health inequity in our design, implementation, and analysis.
Results
Sixty-nine published papers and 19 grey literature papers were included. Interventions included multiple objectives (e.g., tailored provision, practitioner training) or focus (e.g., medical care, screening). Theory underpinning intervention design was rarely explicit but some specific tools and theory was identified for the framework. Practitioners and our patient group prioritised 28 example interventions to aid the design of local contextually sensitive interventions.
Conclusions
We combined evidence synthesis, practitioner consultation and dialogue with people with lived experience produced an evidence-informed framework for the design, implementation and evaluation of local primary care health inequity interventions. The public and practitioner voice increases the credibility of our framework as a useful tool for service development.
期刊介绍:
Public Health is an international, multidisciplinary peer-reviewed journal. It publishes original papers, reviews and short reports on all aspects of the science, philosophy, and practice of public health.