What impact do self-referral and direct access pathways for patients have on health inequalities?

BACKGROUND: There is increasing interest in self-referral and direct access as alternatives pathways to care to improve patient access to specialist services. The impact of these pathways on health inequalities is unknown. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this systematic review is to explore the impact of self-referral and direct access pathways on inequalities in health care use. DESIGN: Three databases (Ovid Medline, Embase, Web of Science) and grey literature were systematically searched for articles from January 2000 to February 2023, reporting on self-referral and direct access pathways to care. Title and abstracts were screened against eligibility criteria to identify studies that evaluated the impact on health inequalities. Data were extracted from eligible studies after full text review and a quality assessment was performed using the ROBINS-I tool. RESULTS: The search strategy identified 2948 articles. Nineteen records were included, covering seven countries and six healthcare services. The impact of self-referral and direct access on inequalities was mixed, suggesting that the relationship is dependent on patient and system factors. Typically self-referral pathways and direct access pathways tend to widen health inequalities. White, younger, educated women from less deprived backgrounds are more likely to self-refer, exacerbating existing health inequalities. CONCLUSIONS: Self-referral pathways risk widening health inequalities. Further research is required to understand the context-dependent mechanisms by which this can occur, explore ways to mitigate this and even narrow health inequalities, as well as understand the impact on the wider healthcare system.

Systematic review of the effectiveness of the health inequalities strategy in England between 1999 and 2010.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this systematic review is to explore the effectiveness of the National Health Inequality Strategy, which was conducted in England between 1999 and 2010. DESIGN: Three databases (Ovid Medline, Embase and PsycINFO) and grey literature were searched for articles published that reported on changes in inequalities in health outcomes in England over the implementation period. Articles published between January 1999 and November 2021 were included. Title and abstracts were screened according to an eligibility criteria. Data were extracted from eligible studies, and risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions tool. RESULTS: The search strategy identified 10 311 unique studies, which were screened. 42 were reviewed in full text and 11 were included in the final review. Six studies contained data on inequalities of life expectancy or mortality, four on disease-specific mortality, three on infant mortality and three on morbidities. Early government reports suggested that inequalities in life expectancy and infant mortality had increased. However, later publications using more accurate data and more appropriate measures found that absolute and relative inequalities had decreased throughout the strategy period for both measures. Three of four studies found a narrowing of inequalities in all-cause mortality. Absolute inequalities in mortality due to cancer and cardiovascular disease decreased, but relative inequalities increased. There was a lack of change, or widening of inequalities in mental health, self-reported health, health-related quality of life and long-term conditions. CONCLUSIONS: With respect to its aims, the strategy was broadly successful. Policymakers should take courage that progress on health inequalities is achievable with long-term, multiagency, cross-government action. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021285770).

How and why do financial incentives contribute to helping people stop smoking? A realist review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Smoking is harmful to human health and programmes to help people stop smoking are key public health efforts that improve individual and population health outcomes. Research shows that financial incentives improve the success of stop smoking programmes. However, a better understanding of how they work is needed to better inform policy and to support building capability for implementation.The aims of this study: (1) To review the international literature to understand: How, why, in what circumstances and for whom financial incentives improve the success of stop smoking interventions among general population groups and among pregnant women. (2) To provide recommendations for how to best use financial incentives in efforts to promote smoking cessation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A realist review of published international literature will be undertaken to understand how, why, for whom and in which circumstances financial incentives contribute to success in stopping smoking for general population groups and among pregnant women. Systematic searches were undertaken on 16 February 2022 of five academic databases: MEDLINE (ovid), Embase.com, CIHAHL, Scopus and PsycINFO. Iterative searching using citation tracking and of grey literature will be undertaken as needed. Using Pawson and Tilley's iterative realist review approach, data collected will be screened, selected, coded, analysed and synthesised into a set of explanatory theoretical findings. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this review as data sources to be included are previously published. The study will provide important findings for policy-makers and health system leaders to guide the development of stop smoking services which use incentives, for example, as part of the Health Service Executive's Tobacco Free Programme in Ireland. Understanding how contextual factors impact implementation and programmatic success is key to developing a more effective public health approach to stop smoking. Our dissemination strategy will be developed with our stakeholders. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022298941.

Health equity audits: a systematic review of the effectiveness.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this systematic review is to explore whether health equity audits (HEAs) are effective in improving the equity of service provision and reducing health inequalities. DESIGN: Three databases (Ovid Medline, Embase, Web of Science) and grey literature (Opengrey, Google Scholar) were systematically searched for articles published after 2000, reporting on the effectiveness of HEA. Title and abstracts were screened according to an eligibility criteria to identify studies which included a full audit cycle (eg, initial equity analysis, service changes and review). Data were extracted from studies meeting the eligibility criteria after full text review and risk of bias assessed using the ROBINS-I tool. RESULTS: The search strategy identified 596 articles. Fifteen records were reviewed in full text and three records were included in final review. An additional HEA report was identified through contact with an author. Three different HEAs were included from one peer-reviewed journal article, two published reports and one unpublished report (n=4 records on n=3 HEAs). This included 102 851 participants and over 148 practices/pharmacies (information was not recorded for all records). One study reviewed health equity impacts of HEA implementation in key indicators for coronary heart disease, type 2 diabetes and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Two HEAs explored Stop Smoking Services on programme access and equity. All reported some degree of reduction in health inequalities compared with prior HEA implementation. However, impact of HEA implementation compared with other concurrent programmes and initiatives was unclear. All included studies were judged to have moderate to serious risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: There is an urgent need to identify effective interventions to address health inequalities. While HEAs are recommended, we only identified limited weak evidence to support their use. More evidence is needed to explore whether HEA implementation can reduce inequalities and which factors are influencing effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The study was registered prior to its conduction in PROSPERO (CRD 42020218642).

Reducing health inequalities through general practice: protocol for a realist review (EQUALISE).

INTRODUCTION: Healthcare organisations recognise the moral imperative to address inequalities in health outcomes but often lack an understanding of which types of interventions are likely to reduce them. This realist review will examine the existing evidence on the types of interventions or aspects of routine care in general practice that are likely to decrease or increase health inequalities (ie, inequality-generating interventions) across cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Our realist review will follow Pawson's five iterative stages. We will start by developing an initial programme theory based on existing theories and discussions with stakeholders. To navigate the large volume of literature, we will access the primary studies through the identification of published systematic reviews of interventions delivered in general practice across the four key conditions. We will examine the primary studies included within each systematic review to identify those reporting on inequalities across PROGRESS-Plus categories. We will collect data on a range of clinical outcomes including prevention, diagnosis, follow-up and treatment. The data will be synthesised using a realist logic of analysis. The findings will be a description and explanation of the general practice interventions which are likely to increase or decrease inequalities across the major conditions. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required because this study does not include any primary research. The findings will be integrated into a series of guiding principles and a toolkit for healthcare organisations to reduce health inequalities. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and user-friendly summaries. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020217871.