Turning the tide on inequity through systematic equity action-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Collective agreement about the importance of centering equity in health research, practice, and policy is growing. Yet, responsibility for advancing equity is often situated as belonging to a vague group of 'others', or delegated to the leadership of 'equity-seeking' or 'equity-deserving' groups who are tasked to lead systems transformation while simultaneously navigating the violence and harms of oppression within those same systems. Equity efforts also often overlook the breadth of equity scholarship. Harnessing the potential of current interests in advancing equity requires systematic, evidence-guided, theoretically rigorous ways for people to embrace their own agency and influence over the systems in which they are situated. ln this article, we introduce and describe the Systematic Equity Action-Analysis (SEA) Framework as a tool that translates equity scholarship and evidence into a structured process that leaders, teams, and communities can use to advance equity in their own settings. METHODS: This framework was derived through a dialogic, critically reflective and scholarly process of integrating methodological insights garnered over years of equity-centred research and practice. Each author, in a variety of ways, brought engaged equity perspectives to the dialogue, bringing practical and lived experience to conversation and writing. Our scholarly dialogue was grounded in critical and relational lenses, and involved synthesis of theory and practice from a broad range of applications and cases. RESULTS: The SEA Framework balances practices of agency, humility, critically reflective dialogue, and systems thinking. The framework guides users through four elements of analysis (worldview, coherence, potential, and accountability) to systematically interrogate how and where equity is integrated in a setting or object of action-analysis. Because equity issues are present in virtually all aspects of society, the kinds of 'things' the framework could be applied to is only limited by the imagination of its users. It can inform retrospective or prospective work, by groups external to a policy or practice setting (e.g., using public documents to assess a research funding policy landscape); or internal to a system, policy, or practice setting (e.g., faculty engaging in a critically reflective examination of equity in the undergraduate program they deliver). CONCLUSIONS: While not a panacea, this unique contribution to the science of health equity equips people to explicitly recognize and interrupt their own entanglements in the intersecting systems of oppression and injustice that produce and uphold inequities.

Structural interventions that affect racial inequities and their impact on population health outcomes: a systematic review.

Structural racism is the historical and ongoing reinforcement of racism within society due to discriminatory systems and inequitable distribution of key resources. Racism, embedded within institutional structures, processes and values, perpetuates historical injustices and restricts access to structural factors that directly impact health, such as housing, education and employment. Due to the complex and pervasive nature of structural racism, interventions that act at the structural level, rather than the individual level, are necessary to improve racial health equity. This systematic review was conducted to evaluate the effects of structural-level interventions on determinants of health and health outcomes for racialized populations. A total of 29 articles are included in this review, analyzing interventions such as supplemental income programs, minimum wage policies, nutrition safeguard programs, immigration-related policies, and reproductive and family-based policies. Most studies were quasi-experimental or natural experiments. Findings of studies were largely mixed, although there were clear benefits to policies that improve socioeconomic status and opportunities, and demonstrable harms from policies that restrict access to abortion or immigration. Overall, research on the effects of structural-level interventions to address health inequities is lacking, and the evidence base would benefit from well-designed studies on upstream policy interventions that affect the structural determinants of health and health inequities and improve daily living conditions.

'Back to better': amplifying health equity, and determinants of health perspectives during the COVID-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: Equity and social justice have long been key tenets of health promotion practice, policy and research. Health promotion foregrounds the pertinence of social, economic, cultural, political and spiritual life in creating and maintaining health. This necessitates a critical structural determinants of health perspective that actively engages with the experiences of health and wellbeing among diverse peoples. The inequitable impacts of pandemics are well documented, as are calls for improved pandemic responses. Yet, current pandemic and emergency preparedness plans do not adequately account for the social and structural determinants of health and health equity. METHODS: Through five one-hour online conversations held in April 2020, we engaged 13 practice, policy, research and community leaders on the intersections of COVID-19 and gender, racism, homelessness, Indigenous health and knowledge, household food insecurity, disability, ethics and equitable futures post-COVID-19. We conducted a thematic analysis of speaker and participant contributions to investigate the impacts and influence of COVID-19 related to the structural and social determinants of health. We analyzed which policies, practices and responses amplified or undermined equity and social justice and identified opportunities for improved action. FINDINGS: Analysis of the COVID-19 pandemic revealed four broad themes:• oppressive, unjust systems and existing health and social inequities;• health and social systems under duress and non-responsive to equity;• disproportionate impacts of COVID-19 driven by underlying structural and socioeconomic inequity; and• enhanced momentum for collective mobilization, policy innovations and social transformation. DISCUSSION: There was a strong desire for a more just and equitable society in a post-COVID-19 world, going 'back to better' rather than 'back to normal.' Our analysis demonstrates that equity has not been well integrated into pandemic planning and responses. Social movement and systems theories provide insight on ways to build on existing community mobilization and policy openings for sustained social transformation.

Social media, knowledge translation, and action on the social determinants of health and health equity: A survey of public health practices.

The growth of social media presents opportunities for public health to increase its influence and impact on the social determinants of health and health equity. The National Collaborating Centre for Determinants of Health at St. Francis Xavier University conducted a survey during the first half of 2016 to assess how public health used social media for knowledge translation, relationship building, and specific public health roles to advance health equity. Respondents reported that social media had an important role in public health. Uptake of social media, while relatively high for personal use, was less present in professional settings and varied for different platforms. Over 20 per cent of those surveyed used Twitter or Facebook at least weekly for knowledge exchange. A lesser number used social media for specific health equity action. Opportunities to enhance the use of social media in public health persist. Capacity building and organizational policies that support social media use may help achieve this.

Swimming against the tide: A Canadian qualitative study examining the implementation of a province-wide public health initiative to address health equity.

BACKGROUND: Effectively addressing the social determinants of health and health equity are critical yet still-emerging areas of public health practice. This is significant for contemporary practice as the egregious impacts of health inequities on health outcomes continue to be revealed. More public health organizations seek to augment internal organizational capacity to address health equity while the evidence base to inform such leadership is in its infancy. The purpose of this paper is to report on findings of a study examining key factors influencing the development and implementation of the social determinants of health public health nurse (SDH-PHN) role in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: A descriptive qualitative case study approach examined the first Canadian province-wide initiative to add SDH-PHNs to each public health unit. Data sources were documents and staff from public health units (i.e., SDH-PHNs, Managers, Directors, Chief Nursing Officers, Medical Officers of Health) as well as external stakeholders. Data were collected through 42 individual interviews and 226 documents. Interview data were analyzed using framework analysis methods; Prior's approach guided document analysis. RESULTS: Three themes related to the SDH-PHN role implementation were identified: (1) 'Swimming against the tide' to lead change as staff navigated ideological tensions, competency development, and novel collaborations; (2) Shifting organizational practice environments impacted by initial role placement and action to structurally embed health equity priorities; and (3) Bridging policy implementation gaps related to local-provincial implementation and reporting expectations. CONCLUSIONS: This study extends our understanding of the dynamic interplay among leadership, change management, ideological tensions, and local-provincial public health policy impacting health equity agendas. Given that the social determinants of health lie outside public health, collaboration with communities, health partners and non-health partners is essential to public health practice for health equity. The study findings have implications for increasing our knowledge and capacity for effective system-wide intervention towards health equity as a critical strategic priority for public health and for broader public policy and community engagement. Appropriate and effective public health leadership at multiple levels and by multiple actors is tantamount to adequately making inroads for health equity.

Critical examination of knowledge to action models and implications for promoting health equity.

INTRODUCTION: Knowledge and effective interventions exist to address many current global health inequities. However, there is limited awareness, uptake, and use of knowledge to inform action to improve the health of disadvantaged populations. The gap between knowledge and action to improve health equity is of concern to health researchers and practitioners. This study identifies and critically examines the usefulness of existing knowledge to action models or frameworks for promoting health equity. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of existing literature to identify knowledge to action (KTA) models or frameworks and critiqued the models using a health equity support rubric. RESULTS: We identified forty-eight knowledge to action models or frameworks. Six models scored between eight and ten of a maximum 12 points on the health equity support rubric. These high scoring models or frameworks all mentioned equity-related concepts. Attention to multisectoral approaches was the factor most often lacking in the low scoring models. The concepts of knowledge brokering, integrative processes, such as those in some indigenous health research, and Ecohealth applied to KTA all emerged as promising areas. CONCLUSIONS: Existing knowledge to action models or frameworks can help guide knowledge translation to support action on the social determinants of health and health equity. There is a need to further test existing models or frameworks. This process should be informed by participatory and integrative research. There is room to develop more robust equity supporting models.

Intersectoral action for health equity: a rapid systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Action on the social determinants of health is considered a necessary approach to improving health equity. Most of the social determinants of health lie outside the sphere of the health sector and thus collaboration with governmental and non-governmental sectors outside of health are required to develop policies and programs to improve health equity. Case studies of intersectoral action are available, however there is limited information about the impact of intersectoral action on the social determinants of health and health equity. METHODS: Search and retrieval of literature published between 2001 and 2011 was conducted in 6 databases. A staged screening of titles and abstracts, and later full-text, was conducted by two independent reviewers. Reviewers independently assessed the quality of the articles deemed relevant for inclusion. Data were extracted and synthesized in narrative format for all included studies, conducted by one reviewer and checked by another. RESULTS: 17 articles of varied methodological quality met the inclusion criteria. One systematic review investigating partnership interventions found mixed and limited impacts on health outcomes. Primary studies evaluating the impact of upstream and midstream interventions showed mixed effects. Downstream interventions were generally moderately effective in increasing the availability and use of services by marginalized communities. CONCLUSIONS: The literature evaluating the impact of intersectoral action on health equity is limited. The included studies identified reveal a moderate to no effect on the social determinants of health. The evidence on the impact of intersectoral action on health equity is even more limited. The lack of evidence should not be interpreted as a lack of effect. Rigorous evaluations of intersectoral action are needed to strengthen the evidence base of this public health practice.