Scenarios for population health inequalities in 2030 in Europe: the EURO-HEALTHY project experience

Clinical quantitative coronary artery stenosis and coronary atherosclerosis imaging: a Consensus Statement from the Quantitative Cardiovascular Imaging Study Group

The detection and characterization of coronary artery stenosis and atherosclerosis using imaging tools are key for clinical decision-making in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease. In this regard, imaging-based quantification can be improved by choosing the most appropriate imaging modality for diagnosis, treatment and procedural planning. In this Consensus Statement, we provide clinical consensus recommendations on the optimal use of different imaging techniques in various patient populations and describe the advances in imaging technology. Clinical consensus recommendations on the appropriateness of each imaging technique for direct coronary artery visualization were derived through a three-step, real-time Delphi process that took place before, during and after the Second International Quantitative Cardiovascular Imaging Meeting in September 2022. According to the Delphi survey answers, CT is the method of choice to rule out obstructive stenosis in patients with an intermediate pre-test probability of coronary artery disease and enables quantitative assessment of coronary plaque with respect to dimensions, composition, location and related risk of future cardiovascular events, whereas MRI facilitates the visualization of coronary plaque and can be used in experienced centres as a radiation-free, second-line option for non-invasive coronary angiography. PET has the greatest potential for quantifying inflammation in coronary plaque but SPECT currently has a limited role in clinical coronary artery stenosis and atherosclerosis imaging. Invasive coronary angiography is the reference standard for stenosis assessment but cannot characterize coronary plaques. Finally, intravascular ultrasonography and optical coherence tomography are the most important invasive imaging modalities for the identification of plaques at high risk of rupture. The recommendations made in this Consensus Statement will help clinicians to choose the most appropriate imaging modality on the basis of the specific clinical scenario, individual patient characteristics and the availability of each imaging modality.

Sustainable Healthcare Depends on Good Governance Practices

Effective leadership and governance are at the heart of creating and maintaining resilient health systems. COVID-19 exposed a plethora of issues in its wake, most notably the need to plan for resilience. Facing threats that swirl around climate, fiscal solvency, and emerging infectious diseases, healthcare leaders are challenged to think broadly on issues that affect operational viability. The global healthcare community has offered numerous approaches, frameworks, and criteria to assist leaders in creating strategies for better health governance, security, and resilience. As the world exits the worst of the pandemic, now is the time to plan for the sustainability of those strategies. Based on guidance developed by the World Health Organization, good governance is one key to sustainability. Healthcare leaders who develop measures to assess and monitor progress toward strengthening resilience can achieve sustainable development goals.

The 2021 William Feinberg Award Lecture Seeking Glocal Solutions to Cerebrovascular Health Inequities

Global and local (“glocal”) disparities in stroke incidence, prevalence, care, and mortality are persistent, pervasive, and progressive. In particular, the disproportionate burden of stroke in people of African ancestry compared to most other racial/ethnic groups around the world has been long standing, is expected to worsen, and so far, has defied solution, largely because conventional risk factors likely account for less than half of the Black versus White disparity in stroke outcomes. While hypotheses such as a differential impact or inadequate evaluation of traditional risk factors by race have been suggested as potentially key factors contributing to lingering racial/ethnic stroke disparities, relatively understudied novel risk factors such as psychosocial stress, environmental pollution, and inflammation; and influences of the social determinants of health are gaining the most attention (and momentum). Moreover, it is increasingly recognized that while there is a lot still to understand, there needs to be a major shift from incessantly studying the problem, to developing interventions to resolve it. Resolution will likely require targeting multilevel factors, considering contemporaneous cross-national and cross-continental data collection, creating scalable care delivery models, jointly addressing care quality and community drivers of stroke occurrence, incorporating policy makers in planning/dissemination of successful interventions, and investing in robust transdisciplinary research training programs that address the interrelated issues of health equity and workforce diversity, and regional capacity building. To this end, our international multidisciplinary team has been involved in conducting several epidemiological studies and clinical trials in the area of stroke disparities, as well as executing career enhancing research training programs in the United States and Africa. This award lecture paper shares some of the lessons we have learnt from previous studies, presents objectives/design of ongoing initiatives, and discusses plans for the future.

Assessing Urban Health Inequities through a Multidimensional and Participatory Framework: Evidence from the EURO-HEALTHY Project

Urban health inequities often reflect and follow the geographic patterns of inequality in the social, economic and environmental conditions within a city-the so-called determinants of health. Evidence of patterns within these conditions can support decision-making by identifying where action is urgent and which policies and interventions are needed to mitigate negative impacts and enhance positive impacts. Within the scope of the EU-funded project EURO-HEALTHY (Shaping EUROpean policies to promote HEALTH equitY), the City of Lisbon was selected as a case study to apply a multidimensional and participatory assessment approach of urban health whose purpose was to inform the evaluation of policies and interventions with potential to address local health gaps. In this paper, we present the set of indicators identified as drivers of urban health inequities within the City of Lisbon, exploring the added value of using a spatial indicator framework together with a participation process to orient a place-based assessment and to inform policies aimed at reducing health inequities. Two workshops with a panel of local stakeholders from health and social care services, municipal departments (e.g. urban planning, environment, social rights and education) and non-governmental and community-based organizations were organized. The aim was to engage local stakeholders to identify locally critical situations and select indicators of health determinants from a spatial equity perspective. To support the analysis, a matrix of 46 indicators of health determinants, with data disaggregated at the city neighbourhood scale, was constructed and was complemented with maps. The panel identified critical situations for urban health equity in 28 indicators across eight intervention axes: economic conditions, social protection and security; education; demographic change; lifestyles and behaviours; physical environment; built environment; road safety and healthcare resources and performance. The geographical distribution of identified critical situations showed that all 24 city neighbourhoods presented one or more problems. A group of neighbourhoods systematically perform worse in most indicators from different intervention axes, requiring not only priority action but mainly a multi- and intersectoral policy response. The indicator matrices and maps have provided a snapshot of urban inequities across different intervention axes, making a compelling argument for boosting intersectoral work across municipal departments and local stakeholders in the City of Lisbon. This study, by integrating local evidence in combination with social elements, pinpoints the importance of a place-based approach for assessing urban health equity.

Advancing tools to promote health equity across European Union regions: the EURO-HEALTHY project

BACKGROUND

Population health measurements are recognised as appropriate tools to support public health monitoring. Yet, there is still a lack of tools that offer a basis for policy appraisal and for foreseeing impacts on health equity. In the context of persistent regional inequalities, it is critical to ascertain which regions are performing best, which factors might shape future health outcomes and where there is room for improvement.

METHODS

Under the EURO-HEALTHY project, tools combining the technical elements of multi-criteria value models and the social elements of participatory processes were developed to measure health in multiple dimensions and to inform policies. The flagship tool is the Population Health Index (PHI), a multidimensional measure that evaluates health from the lens of equity in health determinants and health outcomes, further divided into sub-indices. Foresight tools for policy analysis were also developed, namely: (1) scenarios of future patterns of population health in Europe in 2030, combining group elicitation with the Extreme-World method and (2) a multi-criteria evaluation framework informing policy appraisal (case study of Lisbon). Finally, a WebGIS was built to map and communicate the results to wider audiences.

RESULTS

The Population Health Index was applied to all European Union (EU) regions, indicating which regions are lagging behind and where investments are most needed to close the health gap. Three scenarios for 2030 were produced - (1) the 'Failing Europe' scenario (worst case/increasing inequalities), (2) the 'Sustainable Prosperity' scenario (best case/decreasing inequalities) and (3) the 'Being Stuck' scenario (the EU and Member States maintain the status quo). Finally, the policy appraisal exercise conducted in Lisbon illustrates which policies have higher potential to improve health and how their feasibility can change according to different scenarios.

CONCLUSIONS

The article makes a theoretical and practical contribution to the field of population health. Theoretically, it contributes to the conceptualisation of health in a broader sense by advancing a model able to integrate multiple aspects of health, including health outcomes and multisectoral determinants. Empirically, the model and tools are closely tied to what is measurable when using the EU context but offering opportunities to be upscaled to other settings.