Search

Background: Virtual care quickly became of crucial importance to health systems around the world during the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite the potential of virtual care to enhance access for some communities, the scale and pace at which services were virtualized did not leave many organizations with sufficient time and resources to ensure optimal and equitable delivery of care for everyone. The objective of this paper is to outline the experiences of health care organizations rapidly implementing virtual care during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic and examine whether and how health equity was considered. Methods: We used an exploratory, multiple case study approach involving four health and social service organizations providing virtual care services to structurally marginalized communities in the province of Ontario, Canada. We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with providers, managers, and patients to understand the challenges experienced by organizations and the strategies put in place to support health equity during the rapid virtualization of care. Thirty-eight interviews were thematically analyzed using rapid analytic techniques. Results: Organizations experienced challenges related to infrastructure availability, digital health literacy, culturally appropriate approaches, capacity for health equity, and virtual care suitability. Strategies to support health equity included the provision of blended models of care, creation of volunteer and staff support teams, participation in community engagement and outreach, and securement of infrastructure for clients. We put our findings into the context of an existing framework conceptualizing access to health care and expand on what this means for equitable access to virtual care for structurally marginalized communities. Conclusion: This paper highlights the need to pay greater attention to the role of health equity in virtual care delivery and situate that conversation around existing inequitable structures in the health care system that are perpetuated when delivering care virtually. An equitable and sustainable approach to virtual care delivery will require applying an intersectionality lens on the strategies and solutions needed to address existing inequities in the system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Inequitable access to primary health care (PHC) remains a problem for most western countries. Failure to scale up effective interventions has been due, in part, to a failure to share the logic and essential elements of successful programs. The aim of this paper is to describe what we learned about improving access to PHC for vulnerable groups across multiple sites through use of a common theory-based program logic model and a common evaluation approach. This was the IMPACT initiative. Methods: IMPACT's evaluation used a mixed methods design with longitudinal (pre and post) analysis of six interventions. The analysis for this paper included four of the six sites that met study criteria. These sites were located in Canada (Alberta, Quebec and Ontario) and Australia (New South Wales). Using the overarching logic model, unexpected findings were reviewed, and alternative explanations were considered to understand how the mechanisms of each intervention may have contributed to results. Results: Each site addressed their local access problem with different strategies and from different starting points. All sites observed changes in patient abilities to access PHC and provider access capabilities. The combination of intended and observed consequences for consumers and providers was different at each site, but all sites achieved change in both consumer ability and provider capability, even in interventions where there was no activity targeting provider behaviors. Discussion: The model helped to identify, explore and synthesize intended and unintended consequences of four interventions that appeared to have more differences than similarities. Similar outcomes for different interventions and multiple impacts of each intervention on abilities were observed, implying complex causal pathways. Conclusions: All the interventions were a low-cost incremental attempt to address unmet health care needs of vulnerable populations. Change is possible; sustaining change may be more challenging. Access to PHC requires attention to both patient abilities and provider characteristics. The logic model proved to be a valuable heuristic tool for defining the objectives of the interventions, evaluating their impacts, and learning from the comparison of 'cases'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Socially disadvantaged patients may lack self-efficacy to navigate a complex health system making them vulnerable to healthcare inequity. We aimed to develop an Index of social vulnerability that predicts increased risk of negative healthcare events (e.g. emergency hospitalization), independent of chronic disease burden. The analysis illustrates the conceptual and practical steps leading to the development of a pragmatic Index of social vulnerability to limited healthcare self-efficacy. Methods: Using data from a 3-year cohort of 2507 adult primary care patients in Québec (Canada), we applied two complementary structural equation modelling approaches—Partial Least Squares Path Modelling (PLS-PM) and Multiple indicators and Multiple Causes (MIMIC) modelling—to identify a minimal set of social characteristics that could be summed into an Index related to limited healthcare self-efficacy. We then used logistic regression to determine if the Index predicted: hospital emergency department use; hospital admissions; unmet need for care, and others. We privileged parsimony over explanatory capacity in our analytic decisions to make the Index pragmatic for epidemiologic and clinical use. Results: The Individual Social Vulnerability Index is the weighted sum of five indicators: two indicators of social support; educational achievement; financial status; limited language proficiency. The Index predicts increased likelihood of all negative healthcare outcomes except unmet need, with a clear threshold at Index ≥ 2. The effect is independent of chronic disease burden. Conclusion: When social deficits outweigh social assets by two or more (Index ≥ 2), there is an increased risk of negative healthcare events beyond the risk attributable to poor health. The Index is a pragmatic tool to identify a minority of patients who will require additional support to receive equitable healthcare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: International evidence shows that enhancement of primary health care (PHC) services for disadvantaged populations is essential to reducing health and health care inequities. However, little is known about how to enhance equity at the organizational level within the PHC sector. Drawing on research conducted at two PHC Centres in Canada whose explicit mandates are to provide services to marginalized populations, the purpose of this paper is to discuss (a) the key dimensions of equity-oriented services to guide PHC organizations, and (b) strategies for operationalizing equity-oriented PHC services, particularly for marginalized populations. Methods: The PHC Centres are located in two cities within urban neighborhoods recognized as among the poorest in Canada. Using a mixed methods ethnographic design, data were collected through intensive immersion in the Centres, and included: (a) in-depth interviews with a total of 114 participants (73 patients; 41 staff), (b) over 900 hours of participant observation, and (c) an analysis of key organizational documents, which shed light on the policy and funding environments. Results: Through our analysis, we identified four key dimensions of equity-oriented PHC services: inequity-responsive care; trauma- and violence-informed care; contextually-tailored care; and culturally-competent care. The operationalization of these key dimensions are identified as 10 strategies that intersect to optimize the effectiveness of PHC services, particularly through improvements in the quality of care, an improved 'fit' between people's needs and services, enhanced trust and engagement by patients, and a shift from crisis-oriented care to continuity of care. Using illustrative examples from the data, these strategies are discussed to illuminate their relevance at three inter-related levels: organizational, clinical programming, and patient-provider interactions. Conclusions: These evidence- and theoretically-informed key dimensions and strategies provide direction for PHC organizations aiming to redress the increasing levels of health and health care inequities across population groups. The findings provide a framework for conceptualizing and operationalizing the essential elements of equity-oriented PHC services when working with marginalized populations, and will have broad application to a wide range of settings, contexts and jurisdictions. Future research is needed to link these strategies to quantifiable process and outcome measures, and to test their impact in diverse PHC settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]