Genetic analyses of diverse populations improves discovery for complex traits.

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have laid the foundation for investigations into the biology of complex traits, drug development and clinical guidelines. However, the majority of discovery efforts are based on data from populations of European ancestry1-3. In light of the differential genetic architecture that is known to exist between populations, bias in representation can exacerbate existing disease and healthcare disparities. Critical variants may be missed if they have a low frequency or are completely absent in European populations, especially as the field shifts its attention towards rare variants, which are more likely to be population-specific4-10. Additionally, effect sizes and their derived risk prediction scores derived in one population may not accurately extrapolate to other populations11,12. Here we demonstrate the value of diverse, multi-ethnic participants in large-scale genomic studies. The Population Architecture using Genomics and Epidemiology (PAGE) study conducted a GWAS of 26 clinical and behavioural phenotypes in 49,839 non-European individuals. Using strategies tailored for analysis of multi-ethnic and admixed populations, we describe a framework for analysing diverse populations, identify 27 novel loci and 38 secondary signals at known loci, as well as replicate 1,444 GWAS catalogue associations across these traits. Our data show evidence of effect-size heterogeneity across ancestries for published GWAS associations, substantial benefits for fine-mapping using diverse cohorts and insights into clinical implications. In the United States-where minority populations have a disproportionately higher burden of chronic conditions13-the lack of representation of diverse populations in genetic research will result in inequitable access to precision medicine for those with the highest burden of disease. We strongly advocate for continued, large genome-wide efforts in diverse populations to maximize genetic discovery and reduce health disparities.

A Scoping Review of Health Equity Interventions in Governmental Public Health.

CONTEXT: Despite major efforts in research, practice, and policy, racial and ethnic disparities in health and health care persist in the United States. Interventions in collaboration with governmental public health may provide ways to address these persistent racial and ethnic health and health care disparities and improve health outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a comprehensive review of health equity interventions performed in collaboration with public health agencies. DESIGN: This scoping review includes intervention studies from Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Academic Search Premier, published between 2017 and 2023. The search strategy used terminology focused on 4 concepts: race/ethnicity, equity, health departments, and epidemiologic studies. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: The following inclusion criteria were determined a priori: (1) intervention tailored to reduce racial/ethnic health disparities, (2) public health department involvement, (3) health outcome measures, (4) use of epidemiologic study methods, (5) written in English, (6) implemented in the United States, (7) original data (not a commentary), and (8) published between January 2017 and January 2023. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: This review focused primarily on 4 dimensions of racial health equity interventions including intervention components, intervention settings, intervention delivery agents, and intervention outcomes. RESULTS: This review indicated that health equity interventions involving public health agencies focused on the following categories: (1) access to care, (2) health behavior, (3) infectious disease testing, (4) preventing transmission, and (5) cancer screening. Critical strategies included in interventions for reaching racial/ethnic minoritized people included using community settings, mobile clinics, social media/social networks, phone-based interventions, community-based workers, health education, active public health department involvement, and structural/policy change. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review aims to provide an evidence map to inform public health agencies, researchers, and funding agencies on gaps in knowledge and priority areas for future research and to identify existing health equity interventions that could be considered for implementation by public health leaders.

Understanding the Roles, Responsibilities, and Factors for Success of Health Equity Officers in Health Care Settings: A Qualitative Study.

CONTEXT: Recent national guidelines aimed at addressing equity in health care settings have contributed to an increase in equity officer positions, yet little is known about their roles, responsibilities, or strategies for engaging in health equity work. OBJECTIVE: To understand the roles and responsibilities of equity officers, as well as facilitators and barriers to their success. DESIGN: In-depth semi-structured interviews with selected respondents from the Equity Officer National Study. SETTING: Hospitals and health care systems across the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-six equity officers who had responded to the Equity Officer National Study survey. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The interview guide explored strategies, facilitators, and barriers for engaging in health equity work in hospitals/health systems and communities. RESULTS: The job roles described by participants fell into 4 categories: community benefits/relations, population/community health, workforce, and health equity. Equity officers described key areas to support success at the individual equity officer level: knowledge and expertise, professional skills, and interpersonal skills; at the hospital level: leadership, workforce, infrastructure and resources, and policies and processes; at the community level: leadership and partnerships; and at the system level: requirements and regulations, investment and resources, and sociocultural and political characteristics of the community. These key areas have been organized to create a Framework for Equity Officer Success. CONCLUSIONS: The Framework for Equity Officer Success should be incorporated into hospital board, community stakeholder, and policymaker discussions about how to support health equity work in hospitals and health care systems.

Leveraging Science to Advance Health Equity: Preliminary Considerations for Implementing Health Equity Science at State and Local Health Departments.

CONTEXT: In 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) launched CORE, an agency-wide strategy to embed health equity as a foundational component across all areas of the agency's work. The CDC established a definition of health equity science (HES) and principles to guide the development, implementation, dissemination, and use of the HES framework to move beyond documenting inequities to investigating root causes and promoting actionable approaches to eliminate health inequities. The HES framework may be used by state and local health departments to advance health equity efforts in their jurisdictions. OBJECTIVE: Identify implementation considerations and opportunities for providing technical assistance and support to state and local public health departments in advancing HES. DESIGN: A series of implementation consultations and multi-jurisdictional facilitated discussions were held with state and local health departments and community partners in 5 states to gather feedback on the current efforts, opportunities, and support needs to advance HES at the state and local levels. The information shared during these activities was analyzed using inductive and deductive methods, validated with partners, and summarized into themes and HES implementation considerations. RESULTS: Five themes emerged regarding current efforts, opportunities, and support needed to implement HES at state and local health departments. These themes included the following criteria: (1) enhancing the existing health equity evidence base; (2) addressing interdisciplinary public health practice and data needs; (3) recognizing the value of qualitative data; (4) evaluating health equity programs and policies; and (5) including impacted communities in the full life cycle of health equity efforts. Within these themes, we identified HES implementation considerations, which may be leveraged to inform future efforts to advance HES at the state and local levels. CONCLUSION: Health equity efforts at state and local health departments may be strengthened by leveraging the HES framework and implementation considerations.

Advancing health equity in prelicensure nursing curricula: Findings from a critical review.

Nurses play a crucial role in reducing health disparities and advancing health equity for individuals and communities. The future nursing workforce relies on their nursing education to prepare them to promote health equity. Nursing educators prepare students through a variety of andragogical learning strategies in the classroom and in clinical experiences and by intentionally updating and revising curricular content to address knowledge and competency gaps. This critical review aimed to determine the extent to which health equity concepts are explicitly present in prelicensure undergraduate nursing curricula globally. Of 434 articles screened, 22 articles describing 20 studies met inclusion criteria. Frequency and quantity of health equity content, concepts and topics, teaching strategies, evaluation strategies, and the overall extent of integration varied widely. Notably, only two articles described overall well-integrated explicit health equity content, and there was little attention to whether students transfer this learning into practice. A focus on individualism rather than population and community was noted, highlighting the presence of whiteness in nursing. Results from this review confirm that nursing education has room to improve with respect to health equity in the curricula.

Equity in Health: Consideration of Race and Ethnicity in Precision Medicine.

The causes for disparities in implementation of precision medicine are complex, due in part to differences in clinical care and a lack of engagement and recruitment of under-represented populations in studies. New tools and large genetic cohorts can change these circumstances and build access to personalized medicine for disadvantaged populations.

COVID-19 and global equity for health: The good, the bad, and the wicked.

Elvin Geng and co-authors discuss monitoring and achieving equity in provision of vaccines for COVID-19.

Dental Therapists in the United States: Health Equity, Advancing.

BACKGROUND: Dental therapists (DTs) are primary care dental providers, used globally, and were introduced in the United States (US) in 2005. DTs have now been adopted in 13 states and several Tribal nations. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to qualitatively examine the drivers and outcomes of the US dental therapy movement through a health equity lens, including community engagement, implementation and dissemination, and access to oral health care. METHODS: The study compiled a comprehensive document library on the dental therapy movement including literature, grant documents, media and press, and gray literature. Key stakeholder interviews were conducted across the spectrum of engagement in the movement. Dedoose software was used for qualitative coding. Themes were assessed within a holistic model of oral health equity. FINDINGS: Health equity is a driving force for dental therapy adoption. Community engagement has been evident in diverse statewide coalitions. National accreditation standards for education programs that can be deployed in 3 years without an advanced degree reduces educational barriers for improving workforce diversity. Safe, high-quality care, improvements in access, and patient acceptability have been well documented for DTs in practice. CONCLUSION: Having firmly taken root politically, the impact of the dental therapy movement in the US, and the long-term health impacts, will depend on the path of implementation and a sustained commitment to the health equity principle.

Sex-tailored pharmacology and COVID-19: Next steps towards appropriateness and health equity.

Making gender bias visible allows to fill the gaps in knowledge and understand health records and risks of women and men. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has shown a clear gender difference in health outcomes. The more severe symptoms and higher mortality in men as compared to women are likely due to sex and age differences in immune responses. Age-associated decline in sex steroid hormone levels may mediate proinflammatory reactions in older adults, thereby increasing their risk of adverse outcomes, whereas sex hormones and/or sex hormone receptor modulators may attenuate the inflammatory response and provide benefit to COVID-19 patients. While multiple pharmacological options including anticoagulants, glucocorticoids, antivirals, anti-inflammatory agents and traditional Chinese medicine preparations have been tested to treat COVID-19 patients with varied levels of evidence in terms of efficacy and safety, information on sex-targeted treatment strategies is currently limited. Women may have more benefit from COVID-19 vaccines than men, despite the occurrence of more frequent adverse effects, and long-term safety data with newly developed vectors are eagerly awaited. The prevalent inclusion of men in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with subsequent extrapolation of results to women needs to be addressed, as reinforcing sex-neutral claims into COVID-19 research may insidiously lead to increased inequities in health care. The huge worldwide effort with over 3000 ongoing RCTs of pharmacological agents should focus on improving knowledge on sex, gender and age as pillars of individual variation in drug responses and enforce appropriateness.