Values are not enough: qualitative study identifying critical elements for prioritization of health equity in health systems.

BACKGROUND: Health system policies and programs that reduce health inequities and improve health outcomes are essential to address unjust social gradients in health. Prioritization of health equity is fundamental to addressing health inequities but challenging to enact in health systems. Strategies are needed to support effective prioritization of health equity. METHODS: Following provincial policy recommendations to apply a health equity lens in all public health programs, we examined health equity prioritization within British Columbia health authorities during early implementation. We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews and focus groups with 55 senior executives, public health directors, regional directors, and medical health officers from six health authorities and the Ministry of Health. We used an inductive constant comparative approach to analysis guided by complexity theory to determine critical elements for prioritization. RESULTS: We identified seven critical elements necessary for two fundamental shifts within health systems. 1) Prioritization through informal organization includes creating a systems value for health equity and engaging health equity champions. 2) Prioritization through formal organization requires explicit naming of health equity as a priority, designating resources for health equity, requiring health equity in decision making, building capacity and competency, and coordinating a comprehensive approach across levels of the health system and government. CONCLUSIONS: Although creating a shared value for health equity is essential, health equity - underpinned by social justice - needs to be embedded at the structural level to support effective prioritization. Prioritization within government and ministries is necessary to facilitate prioritization at other levels. All levels within health systems should be accountable for explicitly including health equity in strategic plans and goals. Dedicated resources are needed for health equity initiatives including adequate resourcing of public health infrastructure, training, and hiring of staff with equity expertise to develop competencies and system capacity.

Health Equity Talk: Understandings of Health Equity among Health Leaders.

INTRODUCTION: Reducing health inequities is a stated goal of health systems worldwide. There is widespread commitment to health equity among public health leaders and calls for reorientation of health systems towards health equity. As part of the Equity Lens in Public Health (ELPH) program of research, public health decision makers and researchers in British Columbia collaborated to study the application of a health equity lens in a time of health system renewal. We drew on intersectionality, complexity and critical social justice theories to understand how participants construct health equity and apply a health equity lens as part of public health renewal. METHODS: 15 focus groups and 16 individual semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 55 health system leaders. Data were analyzed using constant comparative analysis to explore how health equity was constructed in relation to understandings and actions. RESULTS: Four main themes were identified in terms of how health care leaders construct health equity and actions to reduce health inequities: (1) population health, (2) determinants of health, and (3) accessibility and (4) challenges of health equity talk. The first three aspects of health equity talk reflect different understandings of health equity rooted in vulnerability (individual versus structural), determinants of health (material versus social determinants), and appropriate health system responses (targeted versus universal responses). Participants identified that talking about health equity in the health care system, either inside or outside of public health, is a 'challenging conversation' because health equity is understood in diverse ways and there is little guidance available to apply a health equity lens. CONCLUSIONS: These findings reflect the importance of creating a shared understanding of health equity within public health systems, and providing guidance and clarity as to the meaning and application of a health equity lens. A health equity lens for public health should capture both the production and distribution of health inequities and link to social justice to inform action.

Framing the issues: moral distress in health care.

Moral distress in health care has been identified as a growing concern and a focus of research in nursing and health care for almost three decades. Researchers and theorists have argued that moral distress has both short and long-term consequences. Moral distress has implications for satisfaction, recruitment and retention of health care providers and implications for the delivery of safe and competent quality patient care. In over a decade of research on ethical practice, registered nurses and other health care practitioners have repeatedly identified moral distress as a concern and called for action. However, research and action on moral distress has been constrained by lack of conceptual clarity and theoretical confusion as to the meaning and underpinnings of moral distress. To further examine these issues and foster action on moral distress, three members of the University of Victoria/University of British Columbia (UVIC/UVIC) nursing ethics research team initiated the development and delivery of a multi-faceted and interdisciplinary symposium on Moral Distress with international experts, researchers, and practitioners. The goal of the symposium was to develop an agenda for action on moral distress in health care. We sought to develop a plan of action that would encompass recommendations for education, practice, research and policy. The papers in this special issue of HEC Forum arose from that symposium. In this first paper, we provide an introduction to moral distress; make explicit some of the challenges associated with theoretical and conceptual constructions of moral distress; and discuss the barriers to the development of research, education, and policy that could, if addressed, foster action on moral distress in health care practice. The following three papers were written by key international experts on moral distress, who explore in-depth the issues in three arenas: education, practice, research. In the fifth and last paper in the series, we highlight key insights from the symposium and the papers in the series, propose to redefine moral distress, and outline directions for an agenda for action on moral distress in health care.

Revisiting "Who gets care?": health equity as an arena for nursing action.

This article revisits and reaffirms Patricia Steven's earlier work on access to healthcare as an important arena for nursing action. Many of the conditions that affect access to healthcare, such as racism and oppression, also shape inequities in health outcomes. We propose a conceptualization of social justice that is consistent with addressing the conditions that influence health inequities. We also discuss the implications of a critical and feminist conception of social justice for nursing action, education, practice, research, and policy.