Search

Inequalities in health have long been recognized as interconnected with social, economic, and various other inequalities. The application of social justice and equity, diversity, inclusion (EDI) frameworks may help expand interdisciplinary perspectives in addressing inequalities. This review study conducted an environmental scan for existing syntheses of theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs) relevant to the social justice and EDI. Results from Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, CINAHL, PsychINFO, and MEDLINE retrieved an existing implementation science framework intently centered upon health inequalities, and draws from a synthesis of postcolonial theory, reflexivity, intersectionality, structural violence, and governance theory. Given this high degree of relevance to the objective of this review, the framework was selected as a basis for expanded synthesis. Subsequent processes sought to identify social justice TMFs which could be integrated into the base framework selected, as well as to refine scope of the study. Based upon considerations of level of evidence and non-tokenistic integration, the following social justice and EDI TMFs were identified: John Rawls' theory of justice; Amartya Sen's Capabilities Approach; Iris Marion Young's theories of justice; Paulo Freire's critical consciousness; and critical race theory (CRT). The focus of the synthesis performed was scoped towards minimizing potential harms arising from actions intending to reduce inequalities. EDI considerations were not collated into a singular construct, but rather extended as a separate component assessing inequitable distribution of risks and benefits given population heterogeneity. Reflexive analysis amended the framework with two key decisions: first, the integration of environmental justice into a single construct, which helps to inform Rawls' and Sen's TMFs; second, a temporal element of sequential-analysis was employed over a unified output. The result of synthesis consists of a three-component framework which: (1) presents sixteen constructs drawn from selected TMFs, to consider various harms or potential reinforcement of existing inequalities; (2) aims to de-invisibilize marginalized groups who are noted to experience inequitable outcomes, and acknowledges the presence of individuals belonging to multiple groups; and (3) synthesizes seven considerations related to equitable dissemination and evaluation as drawn from TMFs, separated for sequential analysis after assessment of harms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The residents of many Australian rural and remote communities do not have the essential infrastructure and services required to support healthy living conditions and community members choosing healthy lifestyle options. Improving these social determinants of health is seen to offer real opportunities to improve health among such disadvantaged populations. In this paper, we describe the development and trialling of a tool to measure, monitor and evaluate key social determinants of health at community level. Methods: The tool was developed and piloted through a multi-phase and iterative process that involved a series of consultations with community members and key stakeholders and trialling the tool in remote Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory of Australia. Results: The indicators were found to be robust, and by testing the tool on a number of different levels, face validity was confirmed. The scoring system was well understood and easily followed by Indigenous and non-Indigenous study participants. A facilitated small group process was found to reduce bias in scoring of indicators. Conclusion: The Healthy Community Assessment Tool offers a useful vehicle and process to help those involved in planning, service provision and more generally promoting improvements in community social determinants of health. The tool offers many potential uses and benefits for those seeking to address inequities in the social determinants of health in remote communities. Maximum benefits in using the tool are likely to be gained with cross-sector involvement and when assessments are part of a continuous quality improvement program. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A growing proportion of people are living with long term conditions. The majority have more than one. Dealing with multi-morbidity is a complex problem for health systems: for those designing and implementing healthcare as well as for those providing the evidence informing practice. Yet the concept of multi-morbidity (the presence of >2 diseases) is a product of the design of health care systems which define health care need on the basis of disease status. So does the solution lie in an alternative model of healthcare? Discussion: Strengthening generalist practice has been proposed as part of the solution to tackling multi-morbidity. Generalism is a professional philosophy of practice, deeply known to many practitioners, and described as expertise in whole person medicine. But generalism lacks the evidence base needed by policy makers and planners to support service redesign. The challenge is to fill this practice-research gap in order to critically explore if and when generalist care offers a robust alternative to management of this complex problem. We need practice-based evidence to fill this gap. By recognising generalist practice as a 'complex intervention' (intervening in a complex system), we outline an approach to evaluate impact using action-research principles. We highlight the implications for those who both commission and undertake research in order to tackle this problem. Summary: Answers to the complex problem of multi-morbidity won't come from doing more of the same. We need to change systems of care, and so the systems for generating evidence to support that care. This paper contributes to that work through outlining a process for generating practice-based evidence of generalist solutions to the complex problem of person-centred care for people with multi-morbidity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Integrating evidence-based interventions for people with alcohol use disorder (AUD) into primary healthcare (PHC) can increase access to care and reduce morbidity, mortality, and population burden. However, for the integration to be feasible, acceptable, and sustainable, there is a need to contextualize the approach and involve stakeholders. Therefore, this study aimed to use participatory methods to adapt a model for integrating AUD interventions in Tanzania's PHC system at the community, facility, and organizational levels. Methods: A mixed-methods study was used. Participants include key mental health stakeholders, experts, and PHC providers. We conducted a situational analysis to investigate opportunities and constraints in the existing systems of care, utilizing data available from the routine collection and/or in the public domain, individual semi-structured interviews (n = 11), and focus group discussions (3 groups; total n = 26 participants) and a series of theory of change (ToC) workshops (n = 32). Data from the three methods were triangulated to develop the adapted model for integrating interventions for AUD in PHC. Results: A situational appraisal revealed limited community, facility, and organizational resources and infrastructures for supporting services delivery of integrated AUD interventions. Also, shortage of health workforce, inadequate health management information systems, and limited medical supply and financing. Nevertheless, the theory of change proposed integrated AUD intervention packages and strategies to facilitate integrated care for people with AUD. Additionally, the barriers and facilitators for implementing these integrated AUD interventions and how to overcome them were explored. Conclusions: The adapted model for the integrated AUD intervention in Tanzanian PHC revealed limited resources and system functioning for facilitating integrated AUD services. Nevertheless, it proposes the needed integrated AUD interventions and its barriers, facilitators, and strategies for overcoming them. There is a need to pilot the adapted model to inform plans for more comprehensive implementation or scaling up. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: International and national guidelines state that palliative care should be offered to everyone who needs it. To promote the implementation of palliative care in nursing homes, a partnership collaboration was initiated with the goal of implementing high quality palliative care. The partnership consisted of three partner groups: a project group from a non-profit organisation providing health care, managers at the nursing homes and an academic partner. The aim was to explore the social processes within academic-community partnership in a collaboration project. Methods: Digital focus group discussions were conducted with 16 participants, representing all three partner groups. One individual digital interview was also carried out. A constructivist perspective of a grounded theory approach was used for data analysis. Results: The core category, partnership positioning, covers the social processes of the academic-community partnership in a collaboration project to implement and evaluate health-promoting interventions in clinical health care. The core category was found to have four categories: Pre-positioning, Co-positioning, Re-positioning and GoOn-positioning. The process of partnership positioning is conceptualised in a model. Conclusions: Our findings indicate that a new partnership in an implementation project needs holistic, systemic thinking. To enhance implementation in a collaborative project involving different professionals and actors a plan is required to facilitate positioning activities. The process, the roles and the components need to be clearly defined and documented, and the management of a system requires knowledge of the interrelationships between all the components within the system. The development of a conceptual model of Partnership Positioning contributes to knowledge concerning the social dynamic processes which can be applied to support future academic-community collaboration and/or implementation projects. Trial registration: Not applicable. The present study has not been considered as a clinical trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]