A novel conceptual model and heuristic tool to strengthen understanding and capacities for health inequalities research

Health equity: A concept analysis

BACKGROUND

Although health equity is critically important for healthcare delivery, there are inconsistencies in its definitions or lack of definitions.

PURPOSE

Develop a comprehensive understanding of health equity to guide nursing practice and healthcare policy.

METHOD

Walker and Avant's concept analysis method was used to establish defining attributes, antecedents, consequences, and empirical referents of health equity.

FINDINGS

Health equity defining attributes are grounded in ethical principles, the absence of unfair and avoidable differences, and fair and just opportunities to attain a person's full health potential. Health equity antecedents are categorized into environmental; financial or economic; law, politics, and policy; societal and structural; research; and digital and technology.

DISCUSSION

Health equity's antecedents are useful to distinguish health disparities from health outcomes resulting from individual preferences. To achieve health equity, organizations need to focus on addressing the antecedents.

Why and how has the United Kingdom become a high producer of health inequalities research over the past 50 years? A realist explanatory case study

BACKGROUND

Evidence on health inequalities has been growing over the past few decades, yet the capacity to produce research on health inequalities varies between countries worldwide and needs to be strengthened. More in-depth understanding of the sociohistorical, political and institutional processes that enable this type of research and related research capacity to be generated in different contexts is needed. A recent bibliometric analysis of the health inequalities research field found inequalities in the global production of this type of research. It also found the United Kingdom to be the second-highest global contributor to this research field after the United States. This study aims to understand why and how the United Kingdom, as an example of a "high producer" of health inequalities research, has been able to generate so much health inequalities research over the past five decades, and which main mechanisms might have been involved in generating this specific research capacity over time.

METHODS

We conducted a realist explanatory case study, which included 12 semi-structured interviews, to test six theoretical mechanisms that we proposed might have been involved in this process. Data from the interviews and grey and scientific literature were triangulated to inform our findings.

RESULTS

We found evidence to suggest that at least four of our proposed mechanisms have been activated by certain conditions and have contributed to the health inequalities research production process in the United Kingdom over the past 50 years. Limited evidence suggests that two new mechanisms might have potentially also been at play.

CONCLUSIONS

Valuable learning can be established from this case study, which explores the United Kingdom's experience in developing a strong national health inequalities research tradition, and the potential mechanisms involved in this process. More research is needed to explore additional facilitating and inhibiting mechanisms and other factors involved in this process in this context, as well as in other settings where less health inequalities research has been produced. This type of in-depth knowledge could be used to guide the development of new health inequalities research capacity-strengthening strategies and support the development of novel approaches and solutions aiming to tackle health inequalities.

What key conditions and mechanisms generate health inequalities research in different contexts? Study protocol for two realist explanatory case studies

Evidence on health inequalities has grown in recent decades, however, the capacity to generate health inequalities research is uneven, worldwide. A recent bibliometric analysis found notable inequalities of the global production of health inequalities scientific research across countries. What determines the capacity to produce high volumes of health inequalities scientific research, in different settings? What mechanisms are involved? To answer these questions requires in-depth knowledge on the health inequalities research production process, in different settings. We plan to conduct two realist explanatory case studies, to understand why and how particular settings (e.g. the United Kingdom and the city of Barcelona) have generated high volumes of health inequalities research over past decades, and identify the potential key contextual conditions and causal mechanisms involved. This study protocol outlines the rationale and methodology involved, highlights the strengths and limitations of the approach, and provides guidance on how to overcome certain operational challenges and ensure validity of research findings. Valuable learning may be derived from these case experiences, with implications for research, policy and practice. This work can serve as a tool for researcher and planners to guide the development of further case studies to evaluate health inequalities research capacities in other settings.

Health Inequalities in the Time of COVID-19: The Globally Reinforcing Need to Strengthen Health Inequalities Research Capacities

The full impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is yet to be well established; however, as the pandemic spreads, and early results emerge, unmet needs are being revealed, and pressing questions are being asked about who is most affected, how, where, and in what ways government responses might be exacerbating inequalities. A number of scholars have called for more in-depth critical research on COVID-19 and health inequalities to produce a strong empirical evidence based on these issues. There are also justifiable concerns about the scarcity of health-equity actions oriented analyses of the situation and calls for more empirical evidence on COVID-19 and health inequalities. A preliminary condition to establish this type of information is strong capacity to conduct health inequalities research. Worldwide, however, this type of capacity is limited, which, alongside other challenges, will likely hinder capacities of many countries to develop comprehensive equity-oriented COVID-19 analyses, and adequate responses to present and future crises. The current pandemic reinforces the pending need to invest in and strengthen these research capacities. These capacities must be supported by widespread recognition and concern, cognitive social capital, and greater commitment to coordinated, transparent action, and responsibility. Otherwise, we will remain inadequately prepared to respond and meet our society's unmet needs.

How to strengthen a health research system: WHO's review, whose literature and who is providing leadership?

BACKGROUND

Health research is important for the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. However, there are many challenges facing health research, including securing sufficient funds, building capacity, producing research findings and using both local and global evidence, and avoiding waste. A WHO initiative addressed these challenges by developing a conceptual framework with four functions to guide the development of national health research systems. Despite some progress, more is needed before health research systems can meet their full potential of improving health systems. The WHO Regional Office for Europe commissioned an evidence synthesis of the systems-level literature. This Opinion piece considers its findings before reflecting on the vast additional literature available on the range of specific health research system functions related to the various challenges. Finally, it considers who should lead research system strengthening.

MAIN TEXT

The evidence synthesis identifies two main approaches for strengthening national health research systems, namely implementing comprehensive and coherent strategies and participation in partnerships. The literature describing these approaches at the systems level also provides data on ways to strengthen each of the four functions of governance, securing financing, capacity-building, and production and use of research. Countries effectively implementing strategies include England, Ireland and Rwanda, whereas West Africa experienced effective partnerships. Recommended policy approaches for system strengthening are context specific. The vast literature on each function and the ever-growing evidence-base are illustrated by considering papers in just one key journal, Health Research Policy and Systems, and analysing the contribution of two national studies. A review of the functions of the Iranian system identifies over 200 relevant and mostly national records; an analysis of the creation of the English National Institute for Health Research describes the key leadership role played by the health department. Furthermore, WHO is playing leadership roles in helping coordinate partnerships within and across health research systems that have been attempting to tackle the COVID-19 crisis.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence synthesis provides a firm basis for decision-making by policy-makers and research leaders looking to strengthen national health research systems within their own national context. It identifies five crucial policy approaches - conducting situation analysis, sustaining a comprehensive strategy, engaging stakeholders, evaluating impacts on health systems, and partnership participation. The vast and ever-growing additional literature could provide further perspectives, including on crucial leadership roles for health ministries.