Defining equity, its determinants, and the foundations of equity science.

Advancing equity as a priority is increasingly declared in response to decades of evidence showing the association between poorer health outcomes and the unfair distribution of resources, power, and wealth across all levels of society. Quandries present, however, through incongruence, vagueness and disparate interpretations of the meaning of equity dilute and fragment efforts across research, policy and practice. Progress on reducing health inequities is, in this context, unsurprisingly irresolute. In this article, we make a case for equity science that reimagines the ways in which we (as researchers, as systems leaders, as teachers and mentors, and as citizens in society) engage in this work. We offer a definition of equity, its determinants, and the paradigmatic foundations of equity science, including the assumptions, values, and processes., and methods of this science. We argue for an equity science that can more meaningfully promote coherent alignment between intention, knowledge and action within and beyond the health sciences to spark a more equitable future.

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.

The Equity Tool for Valuing Global Health Partnerships.

Global health partnerships (GHPs) involve complex relationships between individuals and organizations, often joining partners from high-income and low- or middle-income countries around work that is carried out in the latter. Therefore, GHPs are situated in the context of global inequities and their underlying sociopolitical and historical causes, such as colonization. Equity is a core principle that should guide GHPs from start to end. How equity is embedded and nurtured throughout a partnership has remained a constant challenge. We have developed a user-friendly tool for valuing a GHP throughout its lifespan using an equity lens. The development of the EQT was informed by 5 distinct elements: a scoping review of scientific published peer-reviewed literature; an online survey and follow-up telephone interviews; workshops in Canada, Burkina Faso, and Vietnam; a critical interpretive synthesis; and a content validation exercise. Findings suggest GHPs generate experiences of equity or inequity yet provide little guidance on how to identify and respond to these experiences. The EQT can guide people involved in partnering to consider the equity implications of all their actions, from inception, through implementation and completion of a partnership. When used to guide reflective dialogue with a clear intention to advance equity in and through partnering, this tool offers a new approach to valuing global health partnerships. Global health practitioners, among others, can apply the EQT in their partnerships to learning together about how to cultivate equity in their unique contexts within what is becoming an increasingly diverse, vibrant, and responsive global health community.

Prioritizing gender equity and intersectionality in Canadian global health institutions and partnerships.

Despite governmental efforts to close the gender gap and global calls including Sustainable Development Goal 5 to promote gender equality, the sobering reality is that gender inequities continue to persist in Canadian global health institutions. Moreover, from health to the economy, security to social protection, COVID-19 has exposed and heightened pre-existing inequities, with women, especially marginalized women, being disproportionately impacted. Women, particularly women who face bias along multiple identity dimensions, continue to be at risk of being excluded or delegitimized as participants in the global health workforce and continue to face barriers in career advancement to leadership, management and governance positions in Canada. These inequities have downstream effects on the policies and programmes, including global health efforts intended to support equitable partnerships with colleagues in low- and middle- income countries. We review current institutional gender inequities in Canadian global health research, policy and practice and by extension, our global partnerships. Informed by this review, we offer four priority actions for institutional leaders and managers to gender-transform Canadian global health institutions to accompany both the immediate response and longer-term recovery efforts of COVID-19. In particular, we call for the need for tracking indicators of gender parity within and across our institutions and in global health research (e.g., representation and participation, pay, promotions, training opportunities, unpaid care work), accountability and progressive action.

Equity at a time of pandemic.

Health promotion has long aspired for a world where all people can live to their full potential. Yet, COVID-19 illuminates dramatically different consequences for populations bearing heavy burdens of systemic disadvantage within countries and between the Global South and Global North. Many months of pandemic is entrenching inequities that reveal themselves in the vastly differential distribution of hospitalization and mortality, for example, among racialized groups in the USA. Amplified awareness of the intimate relationship between health, social structures, and economy opens a window of opportunity to act on decades of global commitments to prioritize health equity. Choices to act (or not act) are likely to accelerate already vast inequities within and between countries as rapidly as the COVID-19 pandemic itself. Recognizing the inherently global nature of this pandemic, this article explores how determinants of equity are embedded in global responses to it, arguing that these determinants will critically shape our global futures. This article aims to stimulate dialogue about equity-centered health promoting action during a pandemic, using the Canadian Coalition for Global Health Research (CCGHR) Principles for Global Health Research to examine equity considerations at a time of pandemic. Attentiveness to power and the relationship between political economy and health are argued as central to identifying and examining issues of equity. This article invites dialogue about how equity-centered planning, decision-making and action could leverage this massive disruption to society to spark a more hopeful, just, and humane collective future.

Assessing how global health partnerships function: an equity-informed critical interpretive synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Global health partnerships (GHPs) are situated in complex political and economic relationships and involve partners with different needs and interests (e.g., government agencies, non-governmental organizations, corporations, universities, professional associations, philanthropic organizations and communities). As part of a mixed methods study designed to develop an equity-sensitive tool to support more equity-centred North-South GHPs, this critical interpretive synthesis examined reported assessments of GHPs. RESULTS: We examined 30 peer-reviewed articles for power dynamics, equity and inequities, and contradictions or challenges encountered in North-South partnerships. Among articles reviewed, authors most often situated GHPs around a topical focus on research, capacity-building, clinical, or health services issues, with the 'work' of the partnership aiming to foster skills or respond to community needs. The specific features of GHPs that were assessed varied widely, with consistently-reported elements including the early phases of partnering; governance issues; the day-to-day work of partnerships; the performance, impacts and benefits of GHPs; and issues of inclusion. Articles shared a general interest in partnering processes and often touched briefly on issues of equity; but they rarely accounted for the complexity of sociopolitical and historical contexts shaping issues of equity in GHPs. Further, assessments of GHPs were often reported without inclusion of voices from all partners or named beneficiaries. GHPs were frequently portrayed as inherently beneficial for Southern partners, without attention to power dynamics and inequities (North-South, South-South). Though historical and political dynamics of the Global North and South were inconsistently examined as influential forces in GHPs, such dynamics were frequently portrayed as complex and characterized by asymmetries in power and resources. Generally, assessments of GHPs paid little attention to the macroeconomic forces in the power and resource dynamics of GHPs highlights the importance of considering the broader political. Our findings suggest that GHPs can serve to entrench both inequitable relationships and unfair distributions of power, resources, and wealth within and between countries (and partners) if inequitable power relationships are left unmitigated. CONCLUSIONS: We argue that specific practices could enhance GHPs' contributions to equity, both in their processes and outcomes. Enhancing partnering practices to focus on inclusion, responsiveness to North-South and South-South inequities, and recognition of GHPs as situated in a broader (and inequitable) political economy. A relational and equity-centred approach to assessing GHPs would place social justice, humility and mutual benefits as central practices-that is, regular, routine things that partners involved in partnering do intentionally to make GHPs function well. Practicing equity in GHPs requires continuous efforts to explicitly acknowledge and examine the equity implications of all aspects of partnering.

Mining, Colonial Legacies, and Neoliberalism: A Political Ecology of Health Knowledge : Mineria, legados coloniales y neoliberalismo: una ecologia politica del conocimiento en salud.

Scholarship on the health impacts of resource extraction displays prominent gaps and apparent corporate and neocolonial footprints that raise questions about how science is produced. We analyze production of knowledge, on the health impacts of mining, carried out in relation to the Canadian International Resources and Development Institute (CIRDI), a university-based organization with substantial extractive industry involvement and links to Canada's mining-dominated foreign policy. We use a "political ecology of knowledge" framework to situate CIRDI in the context of neoliberal capitalism, neocolonial sustainable development discourses, and mining industry corporate social responsibility techniques. We then document the interactions of specific health disciplinary conventions and knowledges within CIRDI-related research and advocacy efforts involving a major Canadian global health organization. This analysis illustrates both accommodation and resistance to large-scale political economic structures and the need to directly confront the global North governments and sectors pushing extractive-led neoliberal development globally.ResumenLa investigación sobre los impactos en la salud de la extracción de recursos naturales delata brechas importantes y huellas corporativas y neocoloniales, que plantean dudas acerca de cómo se produce la ciencia. Analizamos la producción de conocimiento sobre los impactos en la salud de la minería en relación con el Instituto Canadiense de Desarrollo y Recursos Internacionales (CIRDI, siglas en inglés), una organización universitaria que cuenta con participación sustancial de la industria extractiva y tiene vínculos con la política exterior de Canadá, la cual es dominada por intereses mineros. Utilizamos un marco de "ecología política del conocimiento" para situar a CIRDI en el contexto del capitalismo neoliberal, los discursos neocoloniales de desarrollo sostenible y las técnicas de responsabilidad social corporativa de la industria minera. Luego, documentamos las interacciones entre los conocimientos y convenciones disciplinarias de salud dentro de los esfuerzos de investigación y promoción relacionados con CIRDI que involucran a una importante organización canadiense de salud global. Este análisis muestra tanto la complacencia como la resistencia a las estructuras políticas económicas a gran escala, y la necesidad de confrontar directamente a los gobiernos y sectores del Norte global que manejan el desarrollo neoliberal impulsado por la extracción a nivel mundial.

Reimagining Researchers in Health Research Comment on "Experience of Health Leadership in Partnering With University-Based Researchers in Canada: A Call to 'Re-Imagine' Research".

It is widely accepted that research evidence should inform policy and practice in health service organizations. Yet, amid increasingly complex and even wicked realities, where health inequities prevail and resource-strained health service organizations struggle to keep pace with demand, using research to inform practice and policy remains an elusive ideal. Bowen and colleagues' study illuminates critical relational pathways for engagement in evidence-informed practice and decision-making and suggests beginning insights into what might contribute to the tenuousness of this aspirational ideal. But what kind of reimagination is needed to move toward more genuine engagement in research? This commentary argues for reimagining the relationship between researchers and health research, positioning researchers as responsive, guided by humility, and part of a greater collective effort to advance a public good. It challenges notions of objectivity and detached expertise, suggesting that researchers embrace an active practice of humility focused on approaching research in service and from a position of learning rather than knowing.

Connecting knowledge with action for health equity: a critical interpretive synthesis of promising practices.

Connecting knowledge with action (KWA) for health equity involves interventions that can redistribute power and resources at local, national, and global levels. Although there is ample and compelling evidence on the nature, distribution, and impact of health inequities, advancing health equity is inhibited by policy arenas shaped by colonial legacies and neoliberal ideology. Effective progress toward health equity requires attention to evidence that can promote the kind of socio-political restructuring needed to address root causes of health inequities. In this critical interpretive synthesis, results of a recent scoping review were broadened to identify evidence-informed promising practices for KWA for health equity. Following screening procedures, 10 literature reviews and 22 research studies were included in the synthesis. Analysis involved repeated readings of these 32 articles to extract descriptive data, assess clarity and quality, and identify promising practices. Four distinct kinds of promising practices for connecting KWA for health equity were identified and included: ways of structuring systems, ways of working together, and ways of doing research and ways of doing knowledge translation. Our synthesis reveals that advancing health equity requires greater awareness, dialogue, and action that aligns with the what is known about the causes of health inequities. By critically reflecting on dominant discourses and assumptions, and mobilizing political will from a more informed and transparent democratic exercise, knowledge to action for health equity can be achieved.

The CCGHR Principles for Global Health Research: Centering equity in research, knowledge translation, and practice.

Medical geography and global health share a fundamental concern for health equity. Both fields operate within similar multiple intersecting funding, academic, health systems, and development landscapes to produce scholarship. Both reflect complex interactions and partnerships between people, communities and institutions of unequal power. The Canadian Coalition of Global Health Research Principles for Global Health Research evolved from deep concern about the absence of standards for how Canadians engage in this field. They can serve as a broadly relevant framework to guide how to integrate equity considerations into everyday research, knowledge translation, and practice activities. Comprised of six principles (authentic partnering, inclusion, shared benefits, commitment to the future, responsiveness to causes of inequities, and humility), they are an aspirational and reflective frame that can elevate equity as a central procedural goal and outcome. In this commentary, we describe each of the six principles and offer examples of how they are being applied to guide research practices, inform knowledge translation science and build capacity. We invite collective reflection about moving our field toward more meaningful health equity research and action, using the CCGHR Principles for Global Health Research to spark dialogue about how to align our practices with desire for a more equitable world.

Using Dialogic Methods as a Participatory Knowledge Translation Approach to Promote Integration of Nurse Practitioners in Primary Healthcare Settings.

Background: Nurse practitioners (NPs) were introduced in British Columbia (BC) in 2005 as a new category of health provider. Given the newness of NPs in our health system, it is not unexpected that continued work is required to better integrate NPs in healthcare in BC. Aim: This paper will focus on a research study using dialogic methods as a participatory knowledge translation approach to facilitate integration of NPs in primary healthcare (PHC) settings. Methods: Deliberative dialogue (DD) is a useful knowledge translation tool in health services delivery. Through facilitated conversations with stakeholders, invited to consider research evidence in the context of their experience and tacit knowledge, collective data are generated. DD is a powerful tool to engage stakeholders in the development and implementation of evidence-informed policies and services through discussion of issues, consideration of priorities and development of concrete actions that can be implemented by policy makers and decision-makers. Two DD sessions were held with stakeholders involved in supporting NP integration in a health authority in southern interior BC. Stakeholders were provided syntheses of a literature review and interview results. The first session resulted in the collective development of 10 actions to promote NP integration in PHC settings. The second session was conducted six months later to discuss progress and revisions to actions. Discussion: The use of the dialogic methods used in studying NP integration in PHC settings proved useful in promoting real conversation about the implications of research evidence in living contexts, enabling diverse stakeholders to co-create collaborative actions for further NP integration. The conversations and actions were used to support further NP integration during the study and beyond. Conclusion: DD is a useful approach for transforming health services policy and delivery. It has the potential to move change forward with co-created solutions by the stakeholders involved.

Analyzing Data Generated Through Deliberative Dialogue: Bringing Knowledge Translation Into Qualitative Analysis.

Deliberative dialogue (DD) is a knowledge translation strategy that can serve to generate rich data and bridge health research with action. An intriguing alternative to other modes of generating data, the purposeful and evidence-informed conversations characteristic of DD generate data inclusive of collective interpretations. These data are thus dialogic, presenting complex challenges for qualitative analysis. In this article, we discuss the nature of data generated through DD, orienting ourselves toward a theoretically grounded approach to analysis. We offer an integrated framework for analysis, balancing analytical strategies of categorizing and connecting with the use of empathetic and suspicious interpretive lenses. In this framework, data generation and analysis occur in concert, alongside engaging participants and synthesizing evidence. An example of application is provided, demonstrating nuances of the framework. We conclude with reflections on the strengths and limitations of the framework, suggesting how it may be relevant in other qualitative health approaches.

The Global Fund and tuberculosis in Nicaragua: building sustainable capacity?

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to explore and provide feedback on local stakeholders' experiences with the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (GFATM) as it related to capacity building for tuberculosis (TB) services in Nicaragua. METHODS: An ethnomethodological approach was used to capture the experiences of three different groups: service providers, service recipients, and decision-makers. Data collection involved reviewing secondary texts and records, participant observation, and in-depth interviews and focus groups in both rural and urban municipalities. RESULTS: Stakeholders felt that Nicaragua's Global Fund project improved TB control, built human resource capacity and strengthened community involvement in TB programming; however, they noted several contextual and structural threats to sustainable capacity development. The nature of the GFATM's performance-based evaluation de-emphasized qualitative assessment and, at times, created pressure to meet numeric targets at the risk of decreasing quality. Contextual challenges often determined or limited the potential sustainability of activities. Two examples (training volunteer health workers and establishing TB Clubs) from the broader study are offered here to highlight these challenges from health systems and community perspectives. CONCLUSIONS: Current approaches to GFATM evaluation and accountability may compromise its positive impacts on capacity building in Nicaragua. Greater consideration needs to be given to ensuring more comprehensive evaluation of project implementation.