Health Equity Challenges Research Articles

Addressing LGBTQ+ health equity and disparities in multiple sclerosis: A call for research and action

Multiple sclerosis (MS) research has largely overlooked the experiences of the LGBTQ+ community, leaving significant gaps in understanding and addressing their unique health equity challenges. Despite widespread recognition of LGBTQ+ health disparities, particularly in neurology, research at the intersection of sexual orientation, gender identity, and MS remains limited. LGBTQ+ individuals encounter systemic barriers such as discrimination and lack of culturally competent care, exacerbating disparities in MS management and outcomes. Existing studies are scarce, highlighting the urgent need for increased funding and support for research initiatives. By prioritizing LGBTQ+ inclusivity in research, healthcare, and advocacy, we can strive for a more equitable future in MS care.

Negotiating cancer alone: A qualitative study exploring care experiences of racially and ethnically diverse women diagnosed with breast cancer during COVID-19.

COVID-19 has critically impacted cancer care services including reduced screenings, diagnoses, and surgeries; particularly among Black and Latina/x women who already suffer worse outcomes. This qualitative study explored the care experiences of a diverse sample of breast cancer survivors (N = 21; 7 Black, 4 Hispanic, 10 White) undergoing treatment during the pandemic via online semi-structured interviews. Grounded theory analysis yielded the core category "negotiating cancer alone," that included: (1) psychological distress, negotiating the cancer trajectory in isolation; (2) provider/healthcare system diagnostic and treatment delays; (3) heightened anxiety about treatment delays causing cancer progression; (4) supportive care limitations; and (5) disparate experiences of cancer care disruptions. Black and Latina/x women described greater delays in care, financial challenges, treatment complications, and insurance limitations than White women. The study identifies cancer patients' pandemic-related psychological, healthcare system, and health equity challenges and suggests recommendations to support their increased psychological needs during oncologic care disruptions.

'It doesn't happen any other way': relationship-building and reflexivity for equity-focused intersectoral practice (EquIP).

Intersectoral processes that bring together public institutions, civil society organizations and affected community members are essential to tackling complex health equity challenges. While conventional wisdom points to the importance of human relationships in fostering collaboration, there is a lack of practical guidance on how to do intersectoral work in ways that support authentic relationship-building and mitigate power differentials among people with diverse experiences and roles. This article presents the results of RentSafe EquIP, a community-based participatory research initiative conducted in Owen Sound, Canada, in the midst of a housing crisis. The research explored the potential utility of equity-focused intersectoral practice (EquIP), a novel approach that invests in human relationships and knowledge co-creation among professionals and affected members of the community. The three-phase EquIP methodology centred the grounded expertise of community members with lived/living experience of housing inadequacy to catalyze reflexive thinking by people in professional roles about the institutional gaps and barriers that prevent effective intersectoral response to housing-related inequities. The research demonstrated that EquIP can support agency professionals and community members to (i) engage in (re)problematization to redefine the problem statement to better include upstream drivers of inequity, (ii) support reflexivity among those in professional roles to identify institutional practices, policies and norms that perpetuate stigma and impede effective intersectoral response and (iii) spark individual and collective agency and commitment towards a more equity-focused intersectoral system. We conclude that the EquIP methodology is a promising approach for communities seeking to address persistent health equity and social justice challenges.

Addressing Stigma by Increasing Empathy Toward Vulnerable Populations in Preprofessional Trainees: Impacts of the Generation Tomorrow Summer Health Disparities Scholars Program.

Creating empathetic health care professionals is critical to addressing the health equity challenges of today, particularly because it relates to vulnerable populations. To assess the impact of the Johns Hopkins Center for AIDS Research Generation Tomorrow Summer Health Disparities Scholars (GTSHDS) program on students' empathy toward individuals living with substance use disorder and differential impact on empathy related to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Attitudes towards Mental Illness Questionnaire (AMIQ), an assessment of stigmatizing attitudes, was administered. Preprogram and postprogram participation AMIQ survey data were compared using paired t tests to explore changes within the program year. Unpaired t tests were used to characterize differences between the mean scores across the 2 student cohorts. Both GTSHDS cohorts displayed postprogram increase in empathy. Mean 2019 cohort AMIQ scores shifting from -1.4 (SD 2.01) to -0.8 (SD 2.35) (P = 0.54), and the 2022 cohort shifting from -3.67 (SD 2.01) to -3 (SD 1.61) (P = 0.79). On average, individual scores improved by 2.2 (SD 1.65) points in the 2019 cohort and 2.4 (SD 1.86) points in the 2022 cohort (P = 0.83). Although these were not statistically significant, they suggested a trend toward more empathy. Preliminary data suggest that programs such as GTSHDS that expose students to various aspects of health care principles can prepare future health care professionals in a manner that may reduce health care disparities. Future research with larger population sizes is needed to understand the impacts of the curriculum on empathy and related concepts to achieving health equity.

Health Reform in Aotearoa New Zealand: Insights on Health Equity Challenges One Year On.

Health Reform in Aotearoa New Zealand: Insights on Health Equity Challenges One Year On.

Health equity challenges facing testing, evaluation, and implementation of multi-cancer early detection tests.

e15051 Background: The development of Multi Cancer Early Detection markers may herald a new approach to screening and detection of multiple cancers simultaneously via various biological assays. At each stage of development and evaluation of these tests, and especially at implementation, challenges to ensuring equitable access to advancements in cancer prevention, screening, diagnosis, and treatment arise. Diverse research study populations and methods are key when investigating the efficacy of screening tools in practice. Health equity encompasses all parts of research study and design, particularly increasing diversity in research study populations and methods to reflect intended populations of study and document how MCEDs may impact demographic groups differently. Methods: The MCED Consortium is a not-for-profit group of volunteers, advisors, and companies from the US and the UK spanning a wide range of expertise in biomarker evaluation and implementation, with a special focus on clinical practice, health equity, and communication ( https://www.mced.info/ ). We are developing recommendations for the evaluation of test utility, appropriate prioritized populations for screening or early detection, downstream actions in health systems, achieving health equity, and addressing the communication challenges related to this new, potentially revolutionary generation of tests. Results: The MCED consortium has made recommendations in the domains of investigator, participant level, and study design features. The Consortium also has identified key questions for MCED researchers and users regarding equitable access, acceptance, and follow-up. An emerging challenge relates to the release of these tests to selected populations via the laboratory-developed test pathway; which will almost certainly disproportionately increase access to insured and higher socioeconomic status populations. Conclusions: In this MCED Consortium presentation, we will discuss the barriers to ensuring adequate clinical trial diversity and evaluation of MCEDs and how to optimize equity during their current and near-term distribution.

The COVID-19 Israeli tapestry: the intersectionality health equity challenge

BackgroundCOVID-19 is disproportionately affecting disadvantaged populations, with greater representation and worse outcomes in low socioeconomic and minority populations, and in persons from marginalized groups. General health care system approaches to inequity reduction (i.e., the minimization of differences in health and health care which are considered unfair or unjust), address the major social determinants of health, such as low income, ethnic affiliation or remote place of residents. Yet, to effectively reduce inequity there is a need for a multifactorial consideration of the aspects that intersect and generate significant barriers to effective care that can address the unique situations that people face due to their gender, ethnicity and socioeconomic situation.Main bodyTo address the health equity challenges of diverse population groups in Israel, we propose to adopt an intersectional approach, allowing to better identify the needs and then better tailor the infection prevention and control modalities to those who need them the most. We focus on the two main ethnic – cultural—religious minority groups, that of Arab Palestinian citizens of Israel and Jewish ultra-orthodox (Haredi) communities. Additionally, we address the unique needs of persons with severe mental illness who often experience an intersection of clinical and sociodemographic risks.ConclusionsThis perspective highlights the need for responses to COVID-19, and future pandemic or global disasters, that adopt the unique lens of intersectionality and equity. This requires that the government and health system create multiple messages, interventions and policies which ensure a person and community tailored approach to meet the needs of persons from diverse linguistic, ethnic, religious, socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds. Under-investment in intersectional responses will lead to widening of gaps and a disproportionate disease and mortality burden on societies’ most vulnerable groups.

Applying Rapid Qualitative Analysis for Health Equity: Lessons Learned Using "EARS" With Latino Communities.

Qualitative research amplifies the voices of marginalized communities and thus plays a critical role in shaping our understanding of health inequities and their social determinants. Traditional qualitative approaches, such as grounded theory or thematic analysis, require extensive training and are time- and labor-intensive; as such, they may not be adequately suited to address healthy equity issues that require a swift response. Rapid qualitative analysis (RQA) is an action-oriented approach to qualitative data analysis that may be used when findings are needed to quickly inform practice. RQA capitalizes on using a team to summarize key points from qualitative data into matrices to explore relevant themes efficiently and systematically. In this paper, we provide case examples from our work applying RQA to health equity research with Latino communities to address community needs, such as responses to public health emergencies and the development of service delivery and technology interventions for infectious and chronic diseases. We draw from our collective experiences to share lessons learned and provide the following specific recommendations ("EARS") to researchers interested in applying RQA for health equity research: (1) Employ RQA to address rapidly evolving, urgent, health equity challenges; (2) Assure quality and rigor throughout the RQA process; (3) Respond to barriers and problem-solve as needed; and (4) Strengthen community relationships before, during, and after using RQA. Overall, we advocate for the use of RQA to promote health equity due to its ability to integrate the vital perspectives of marginalized communities and efficiently respond to their needs.

The "Our Voice" Method: Participatory Action Citizen Science Research to Advance Behavioral Health and Health Equity Outcomes.

Citizen science research that more fully engages the community can systematically involve people from under-resourced groups to create practical health-enhancing improvements across physical, social and food environments. Exemplary health equity-focused outcomes include key health behaviors (e.g., healthy eating or physical activity) and community-level changes (e.g., public transit to food shops) that are central to health promotion while being demonstrably impacted by local environmental contexts. Yet, few examples of this approach are readily available for application within complex, community-based settings. In this paper, we present the Our Voice (OV) four-step method to demonstrate an integrated participatory citizen science approach and its usability for action-focused researchers and community health practitioners. In addition, we present a summary of the major research, processes, and community outcomes, with examples drawn from nutrition and healthy food access areas, among others. Finally, we explore the hallmark features of the OV method that effectively engage citizen scientists, empowering action and fostering solution-building across social and environmental structures impacting community health. Expanding research that marries participatory research philosophies with innovative citizen science methods, supported by systematic data collection, visualization, and delivery technologies, in turn provides a powerful toolkit for tackling local to global health equity challenges.

Global Learning for Health Equity: A Literature Review.

In high income countries struggling with escalating health care costs and persistent lack of equity, there is growing interest in searching for innovative solutions developed outside national borders, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Engaging with global ideas to apply them to local health equity challenges is becoming increasingly recognized as an approach to shift the health equity landscape in the United States (US) in a significant way. No single name or set of practices yet defines the process of identifying LMIC interventions for adaptation; implementing interventions in high-income countries (HIC) settings; or evaluating the implementation of such projects. This paper presents a review of the literature describing the practice of adapting global ideas for use in the US, particularly in the area of health equity. Specifically, the authors sought to examine; (i) the literature that advocates for, or describes, adaption of health-related innovations from LMICs to HICs, both generally and for health equity specifically, and (ii) implementation practices, strategies, and evidence-based outcomes in this field, generally and in the area of health equity specifically. The authors also propose terminology and a definition to describe the practice. The literature search included two main concepts: global learning and health equity (using these and related terms). The search consisted of text-words and database-specific terminology (e.g., MeSH, Emtree) using PubMed, Embase (Elsevier), CINAHL (Ebsco), and Scopus in March 2021. The authors also contacted relevant experts to identify grey literature. Identified sources were categorized according to theme to facilitate analysis. In addition, five key interviews with experts engaged with global ideas to promote health equity in the United States were conducted to develop additional data. The literature review yielded over ninety (n = 92) sources relating to the adaptation of global ideas from low resource to higher resource settings to promote health equity (and related concepts). Identified sources range from those providing general commentaries about the value of seeking health-related innovations outside the US border to sources describing global projects implemented in the US, most without implementation or outcome measures. Other identified sources provide frameworks or guidance to help identify and/or implement global ideas in the US, and some describe the role of the World Health Organization and other international consortia in promoting a global approach to solving domestic health equity and related challenges. The literature review demonstrates that there are resources and commentary describing potential benefits of identifying and adapting novel global ideas to address health equity in the US, but there is a dearth of implementation and evaluation data. Terminology is required to define and frame the field. Additional research, particularly in the area of implementation science and evidence-based frameworks to support the practice of what we define as 'global learning' for health equity, is necessary to advance the practice.

Establishing Academic Homes for Homelessness: A Call to Action.

Although homelessness ranks as one of society's most pressing and visible health equity challenges, the academic community has not actively addressed its health impacts, root causes, and potential solutions. Few schools and programs of public health even offer a basic course for students. In the COVID-19 pandemic era, academia must demonstrate urgency to address homelessness and educate learners, motivate fledgling researchers, inform policy makers, offer community-engaged and evidence-based studies, and join in the growing national debate about best approaches. At a minimum, every public health student should understand the interdisciplinary challenges of homelessness, its implications for health equity, and opportunities to address the crisis. We call for academia, particularly schools and programs of public health, to engage more fully in national partnerships to care for members of society who are most marginalized, in terms of health and behavioral health outcomes, quality of life, and connectedness.

Introduction to this special issue.

Introduction to this special issue.

Learning to Lead: 3 Models to Support Public Health Leadership Development

The current public health system is underresourced and understaffed, which has been exacerbated by the coronavirus pandemic. In addition, there has been a decline in the public health workforce at both state and local levels during the last decade. While workforce numbers dwindle, public health systems have to address increasingly complex challenges-such as climate change, chronic diseases, and health equity-challenges that require skilled, adaptive leaders. This article describes the importance of leadership development and how 3 public health training centers (PHTCs) are building leadership skills in the public health workforce. To address the need for public health leadership training, the PHTCs in the Health & Human Services (HHS) Regions 4, 7, and 10 all offer public health leadership institutes (PHLIs). The 3 PHLIs discussed in this article vary in longevity (3-18 years), cohort length (8-12 months), and format (virtual, in-person, and hybrid); yet, all 3 emphasize adaptive leadership through a health equity lens and intentional opportunities to apply skills in practice. Each PHLI conducts extensive evaluation based on Kirkpatrick's levels of evaluation and collects common metrics collected by all PHTCs. Data from the PHLIs illustrate high levels of satisfaction with learning, presentation of data, identification of workplace actions, and improvement of subject matter understanding. Each PHLI also has numerous stories of impact. With public health leaders leaving the workforce and the complexities of practice increasing, leadership training is critical to the current workforce and succession planning. These PHTCs provide a significant, enduring resource toward the development of our nation's public health leaders, as well as meeting the unique needs of their regions' workforces.

Implementing High-Quality Primary Care Through a Health Equity Lens.

The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the importance of centering health equity in future health system and primary care reforms. Strengthening primary care will be needed to correct the longstanding history of mistreatment of First Nations/Indigenous and racialized people, exclusion of health care workers of color, and health care access and outcome inequities further magnified by the COVID-19 pandemic. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) released a report on Implementing High-Quality Primary Care: Rebuilding the Foundation of Health Care, that provided a framework for defining high-quality primary care and proposed 5 recommendations for implementing that definition. Using the report's framework, we identified health equity challenges and opportunities with examples from primary care systems in the United States and Canada. We are poised to reinvigorate primary care because the recent pandemic and the attention to continued racialized police violence sparked renewed conversations and collaborations around equity, diversity, inclusion, and health equity that have been long overdue. The time to transition those conversations to actionable items to improve the health of patients, families, and communities is now.Appeared as Annals "Online First" article.

An Antiracist Health Equity Agenda for Education.

With growing public health and health equity challenges brought to the forefront - following racialized health inequities resulting from COVID-19 and a national reckoning around the deaths of unarmed Black victims at the hands of police - an antiracist health equity agenda has emerged naming racism a public health crisis.

Quality Improvement in Diabetes Care: A Review of Initiatives and Outcomes in the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative.

Despite immense strides in therapeutic advances, clinical outcomes continue to be less than ideal for people with type 1 diabetes. This discrepancy has prompted an outpouring of quality improvement (QI) initiatives to address the medical, psychosocial, and health equity challenges that complicate ideal type 1 diabetes care and outcomes. This article reviews a framework for QI in diabetes care that guided the development of the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative to improve care delivery and health outcomes in type 1 diabetes. Evaluation of the methodology, outcomes, and knowledge gained from these initiatives will highlight the importance of continued QI initiatives in diabetes care.

Identifying technology industry-led initiatives to address digital health equity.

ObjectiveThe COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted various barriers to health and the necessity of having access to digital health services. The technology industry can support addressing health barriers, promoting health equity and partnering with organizations to ensure access to digital health services for underserviced communities. The main objective of this study was to 1) identify what initiatives have been developed within the technology industry to address digital health equity; and to 2) determine whether these initiatives have been effective.MethodsA rapid review and a grey literature scan were conducted. The academic searches were performed using four databases, including Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus, CINAHL and PsychInfo. Two reviewers screened the articles for inclusion criteria. The grey literature scan was performed through Google and Million Short. Searches of technology industry initiatives were completed through scanning technology companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange, the Toronto Stock Exchange and iShares Expanded Tech Sector – Exchange Traded Fund.ResultsWithin the technology industry, 39 companies had relevant initiatives. These were identified as having one or more of the following: 1) having health-related collaborations with other companies, 2) promoting access to technology infrastructure and 3) delivering programs that supported notable inequities within the social determinants of health. Limited data are available on the effectiveness of these initiatives in reducing health inequities.ConclusionsAs technology in the delivery of health services continues to evolve, health equity initiatives must be supported through innovative strategies. Partnering with the technology industry may be one way of addressing these health equity challenges.

Public Health's Next Step in Advancing Equity: Re-evaluating Epistemological Assumptions to Move Social Determinants From Theory to Practice.

The field of public health has increasingly promoted a social ecological approach to health, shifting from an individual, biomedical paradigm to a recognition of social and structural determinants of health and health equity. Yet despite this shift, public health research and practice continue to privilege individual- and interpersonal-level measurements and interventions. Rather than adapting public health practice to social ecological theory, the field has layered new concepts (“root causes,” “social determinants”) onto a biomedical paradigm—attempting to answer questions presented by the social ecological schema with practices developed in response to biomedicine. This stymies health equity work before it begins—limiting the field's ability to broaden conceptions of well-being, redress histories of inequitable knowledge valuation, and advance systems-level change. To respond effectively to our knowledge of social determinants, public health must resolve the ongoing disconnect between social ecological theory and biomedically-driven practice. To that end, this article issues a clarion call to complete the shift from a biomedical to a social ecological paradigm, and provides a basis for moving theory into practice. It examines biomedicine's foundations and limitations, glosses existing critiques of the paradigm, and describes health equity challenges presented by over-reliance on conventional practices. It then offers theoretical and epistemological direction for developing innovative social ecological strategies that advance health equity.

Health inequalities and health equity challenges for victims of modern slavery.

Modern slavery is a serious organized crime, with severe consequences for the physical and mental health of victims, and so has public health implications. Anecdotally many victims of sex slavery experience difficulties accessing healthcare. Public Health England recently articulated the importance of health engagement to address modern slavery but little is known about the experiences of the survivors. We conducted in depth interviews with Albanian female survivors of sex slavery who all displayed significant and complex health needs. Interviews were conducted between July 2017 and January 2018. Thematic analysis identified four primary themes: (i) barriers to access, (ii) negotiating access, (iii) health needs and care received and (iv) overall experience of primary care. Survivors experienced repeated challenges accessing healthcare, for themselves and their children, and initially could not access GP services. When accompanied by an advocate they reported qualitatively and quantitatively improved experiences resulting in improved permeability. Confusion surrounding eligibility criteria and a lack of understanding of modern slavery emerged as the primary barriers, fueling biased adjudications. The importance of advocates, enabling rights-based approaches, improving understanding about access to health services for vulnerable groups, and a need for education across health service settings are discussed.

Leveraging health informatics to foster a smart systems response to health disparities and health equity challenges

Informaticians are challenged to design health information technology (IT) solutions for complex problems, such as health disparities, but are achieving mixed results in demonstrating a direct impact on health outcomes. This presentation of collective intelligence and the corresponding terms of smart health, knowledge ecosystem, enhanced health disparities informatics capacities, knowledge exchange, big-data, and situational awareness are a means of demonstrating the complex challenges informatics professionals face in trying to model, measure, and manage an intelligent and smart systems response to health disparities. A critical piece in our understanding of collective intelligence for public and population health rests in our understanding of public and population health as a living and evolving network of individuals, organizations, and resources. This discussion represents a step in advancing the conversation of what a smart response to health disparities should represent and how informatics can drive the design of intelligent systems to assist in eliminating health disparities and achieving health equity.