Pathways Linking Housing Inequalities and Health Outcomes among Migrant and Refugee Populations in High-Income Countries: A Protocol for a Mixed-Methods Systematic Review.

Several high-income countries are currently experiencing an unprecedented and multifaceted housing crisis. The crisis is escalating rapidly, and its negative ramifications are shared disproportionately by migrant and refugee communities. Although housing is often cited as an important social determinant of health, the relationship between housing inequalities and health outcomes in the context of migrant and refugee populations remain under-explored, particularly in high-income countries. This paper presents a protocol for a mixed-methods systematic review which will synthesize the evidence on the key housing and health inequalities faced by migrant and refugee populations in high-income countries. It will inform the identification of pathways linking housing inequalities to health outcomes. The protocol for this systematic review was developed with guidance from the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for mixed-methods systematic reviews using a convergent integrated approach to synthesis and integration, and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) statement. Quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods studies reporting the association of housing inequalities with physical and mental health outcomes among refugee and migrant populations in high-income countries will be included. Medline, Web of Science, Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus and CINAHL will be searched for peer-reviewed literature. This will be supplemented by gray literature searches using Google Scholar, MedNar and WHOLIS. Two reviewers will independently screen and select studies, assess the methodological quality and conduct data extraction. This systematic review will elucidate the different pathways linking housing inequalities and health outcomes, which may guide the development of targeted housing and public health interventions to improve the health and wellbeing of migrant and refugee populations. The review is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022362868).

Spiritual AIM: assessment and documentation of spiritual needs in patients with cancer.

The chaplain is an essential member of the palliative care (PC) team, yet, standard methods to document chaplain assessments are lacking. The study team performed a retrospective analysis of chaplaincy documentation in an outpatient PC clinic at an academic medical center over 6 months (April 2017 to October 2017). The study team identified unique adult patients with cancer, then manually extracted variables from the electronic medical record. The primary objective was to assess the number of spiritual assessments documented by the chaplain. Secondary objectives included descriptive analysis of identified spiritual needs. Out of the 376 total patient encounters, 292 (77.8%) included documentation of a chaplain's spiritual assessment. The most frequent spiritual need was self-worth/community (n = 163, 55.8%).This study demonstrates that chaplains can effectively document Spiritual AIM-based screening and assessment. Moreover, this may be an effective documentation method across institutions to facilitate chaplain-based data.

Including Health in Environmental Assessments of Major Transport Infrastructure Projects: A Documentary Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Transport policy and practice impacts health. Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) are regulated public policy mechanisms that can be used to consider the health impacts of major transport projects before they are approved. The way health is considered in these environmental assessments (EAs) is not well known. This research asked: How and to what extent was human health considered in EAs of four major transport projects in Australia. METHODS: We developed a comprehensive coding framework to analyse the Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) of four transport infrastructure projects: three road and one light rail. The coding framework was designed to capture how health was directly and indirectly included. RESULTS: We found that health was partially considered in all four EISs. In the three New South Wales (NSW) projects, but not the one South Australian project, this was influenced by the requirements issued to proponents by the government which directed the content of the EIS. Health was assessed using human health risk assessment (HHRA). We found this to be narrow in focus and revealed a need for a broader social determinants of health approach, using multiple methods. The road assessments emphasised air quality and noise risks, concluding these were minimal or predicted to improve. The South Australian project was the only road project not to include health data explicitly. The light rail EIS considered the health benefits of the project whereas the others focused on risk. Only one project considered mental health, although in less detail than air quality or noise. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest EIAs lag behind the known evidence linking transport infrastructure to health. If health is to be comprehensively included, a more complete model of health is required, as well as a shift away from health risk assessment as the main method used. This needs to be mandatory for all significant developments. We also found that considering health only at the EIA stage may be a significant limitation, and there is a need for health issues to be considered when earlier, fundamental decisions about the project are being made.

Built environment interventions for human and planetary health: integrating health in climate change adaptation and mitigation.

OBJECTIVES: Human-generated climate change is causing adverse health effects through multiple direct pathways (e.g. heatwaves, sea-level rise, storm frequency and intensity) and indirect pathways (e.g. food and water insecurity, social instability). Although the health system has a key role to play in addressing these health effects, so too do those professions tasked with the development of the built environment (urban and regional planners, urban designers, landscapers and architects), through improvements to buildings, streets, neighbourhoods, suburbs and cities. This article reports on the ways in which urban planning and design, and architectural interventions, can address the health effects of climate change; and the scope of climate change adaptation and mitigation approaches being implemented by the built environment professions. Type of program or service: Built environment adaptations and mitigations and their connections to the ways in which urban planning, urban design and architectural practices are addressing the health effects of climate change. METHODS: Our reflections draw on the findings of a recent review of existing health and planning literature. First, we explore the ways in which 'adaptation' and 'mitigation' relate to the notion of human and planetary health. We then outline the broad scope of adaptation and mitigation interventions being envisioned, and in some instances actioned, by built environment professionals. RESULTS: Analysis of the review's findings reveals that adaptations developed by built environment professions predominantly focus on protecting human health and wellbeing from the effects of climate change. In contrast, built environment mitigations address climate change by embracing a deeper understanding of the co-benefits inherent in the interconnectedness of human health and wellbeing and the health of the ecosystem on which it depends. In the final section, we highlight the ethical transition that these approaches demand of built environment professions. LESSONS LEARNT: Built environment interventions must move beyond simple ecological sustainability to encouraging ways of life that are healthy for both humans and the planet. There are key challenges facing this new approach.

Creating 'healthy built environment' legislation in Australia; a policy analysis.

Influencing healthy public policy through health advocacy remains challenging. This policy analysis research uses theories of agenda setting to understand how health came to be considered for specific mention in legislation arising from land-use planning system reform in New South Wales, Australia. This qualitative study follows critical realist methodology to conduct a policy analysis of the case. We collected data from purposively sampled in-depth interviews (n = 9), a focus group and documentary analysis. We used three classic policy process (agenda setting) theories to develop an analytic framework for explaining the empirical data: Multiple Streams; Punctuated Equilibrium Theory and Advocacy Coalition Framework. The reform process presented a window of opportunity that opened incrementally over a 2 year period. The opportunity was grasped by individual policy entrepreneurs who subsequently formed a coalition of healthy planning advocates focused on strategically positioning 'health' as legislative objective for the new system. The actual point of influence seemed to appear suddenly when challenges to a perceived economic development agenda within the reforms peaked, and the health objective, see as non-threatening by all stakeholders, was taken up. Our analysis demonstrates how this particular point of influence followed sustained long-term activity by health advocates prior to and during the reform process. We demonstrate a theory-driven policy analysis of health advocacy efforts to influence an instance of major land-use planning reform. The application of multiple policy process theories enables deep understanding of what is required to effectively advocate for healthy public policy.

Framing health for land-use planning legislation: A qualitative descriptive content analysis.

PURPOSE AND SETTING: Framing health as a relevant policy issue for other sectors is not well understood. A recent review of the New South Wales (Australia) land-use planning system resulted in the drafting of legislation with an internationally unprecedented focus on human health. We apply a political science approach to investigate the question 'how and to what extent were health and wider issues framed in submissions to the review?' METHODS: We investigated a range of stakeholder submissions including health focussed agencies (n = 31), purposively identified key stakeholders with influence on the review (n = 24), and a random sample of other agencies and individuals (n = 47). Using qualitative descriptive analysis we inductively coded for the term 'health' and sub-categories. We deductively coded for 'wider concerns' using a locally endorsed 'Healthy Urban Development Checklist'. Additional inductive analysis uncovered further 'wider concerns'. FINDINGS: Health was explicitly identified as a relevant issue for planning policy only in submissions by health-focussed agencies. This framing concerned the new planning system promoting and protecting health as well as connecting health to wider planning concerns including economic issues, transport, public open space and, to a slightly lesser extent, environmental sustainability. Key stakeholder and other agency submissions focussed on these and other wider planning concerns but did not mention health in detail. Health agency submissions did not emphasise infrastructure, density or housing as explicitly as others. CONCLUSIONS: Framing health as a relevant policy issue has the potential to influence legislative change governing the business of other sectors. Without submissions from health agencies arguing the importance of having health as an objective in the proposed legislation it is unlikely health considerations would have gained prominence in the draft bill. The findings have implications for health agency engagement with legislative change processes and beyond in land use planning.

Building partnerships for healthy environments: research, leadership and education.

As populations across the globe face an increasing health burden from rising rates of obesity, diabetes and other lifestyle-related diseases, health professionals are collaborating with urban planners to influence city design that supports healthy ways of living. This paper details the establishment and operation of an innovative, interdisciplinary collaboration that brings together urban planning and health. Situated in a built environment faculty at one of Australia's most prestigious universities, the Healthy Built Environments Program (HBEP) partners planning academics, a health non-government organisation, local councils and private planning consultants in a state government health department funded consortium. The HBEP focuses on three strategic areas: research, workforce development and education, and leadership and advocacy. Interdisciplinary research includes a comprehensive literature review that establishes Australian-based evidence to support the development, prioritisation and implementation of healthy built environment policies and practices. Another ongoing study examines the design features, social interventions and locational qualities that positively benefit human health. Formal courses, workshops, public lectures and e-learning develop professional capacity, as well as skills in interdisciplinary practice to support productive collaborations between health professionals and planners. The third area involves working with government and non-government agencies, and the private sector and the community, to advocate closer links between health and the built environment. Our paper presents an overview of the HBEP's major achievements. We conclude with a critical review of the challenges, revealing lessons in bringing health and planning closer together to create health-supportive cities for the 21st century.

Gender disparities in health care.

The existence of disparities in delivery of health care has been the subject of increased empirical study in recent years. Some studies have suggested that disparities between men and women exist in the diagnoses and treatment of health conditions, and as a result measures have been taken to identify these differences. This article uses several examples to illustrate health care gender bias in medicine. These examples include surgery, peripheral artery disease, cardiovascular disease, critical care, and cardiovascular risk factors. Additionally, we discuss reasons why these issues still occur, trends in health care that may address these issues, and the need for acknowledgement of the current system's inequities in order to provide unbiased care for women in the future.