Equity and gender mainstreaming in public policy: A scoping review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Despite growing attention paid to health equity and efforts to promote gender mainstreaming-a global strategy to promote gender equality-how policymakers have 'institutionalized' this in their work is less clear. Therefore, this planned scoping review seeks to search the peer-reviewed and grey literature to compile evidence on the ways in which policymakers have routinely or systematically considered equity and/or gender in their work. METHODS: A scoping review will be undertaken by drawing on the PRISMA guidelines for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). With the expert guidance of a research librarian, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, PAIS Index, and Scopus databases will be searched, in addition to custom Google searches of government documents. The search will be conducted from 1995 and onwards, as there were no hits prior to this date that included the term "gender mainstream*" in these databases. The inclusion criterion is that: (i) texts must provide information on how equity and/or gender has been considered by government officials in the development of public policy in a routine or systematic manner (e.g., descriptive, empirical); (ii) both texts produced by government or not (e.g., commentary about government action) will be included; (iii) there are no restrictions on study design or article type (i.e., commentaries, reports, and other documents, would all be included); and (iv) texts must be published in English due to resource constraints. However, texts that discuss the work of nongovernmental or intergovernmental organizations will be excluded. Data will be charted by: bibliographic information, including the authors, year, and article title; country the text discussed; and a brief summary on the approach taken. DISCUSSION: This protocol was developed to improve rigour in the study design and to promote transparency by sharing our methods with the broader research community. This protocol will support a scoping review of the ways in which policymakers have routinely or systematically considered equity and/or gender in their work. We will generate findings to inform government efforts to initiate, sustain, and improve gender and equity mainstreaming approaches in policymaking.

Assessing the governance environment for private sector engagement in health in Africa: Results from a multi-country survey.

Background: The role of the private sector in health is clear in many countries but engagement can be improved. The World Health Organization (WHO) developed a global strategy in 2020 focused on engaging the private sector in health service delivery through governance in mixed health systems and detailed six governance behaviours to guide its Member States. To operationalise these global ideas into practice, the Regional Office for Africa conducted a multi-country study to understand perceptions around the six governance behaviours. This article examines the perceptions of respondents from 13 African countries on the governance environment for private sector engagement in health. Methods: Data were collected through an online survey that was distributed to individuals from ministries of health and their partner organisations, private sector institutions and initiatives in countries and development organisations (n = 81) across 13 countries. The survey was based on the following six governance behaviours: build understanding, enable stakeholders, nurture trust, foster relations, align structures and deliver strategy. Results: Results showed that respondents had mixed perceptions of the governance environment for private sector engagement in health in their respective countries. Although 88% of respondents (n = 63/72) were familiar with the general inclusion of the private sector in national health sector plans, 63% of respondents (n = 45/71) noted there was limited or no integration of the private sector in the health system, and further, 28% of respondents noted there was no private sector reporting in health information systems (n = 19/69). Key opportunities presented in more than one governance behaviour include: (i) increasing private sector engagement in public sector activities, (ii) establishing clear roles and responsibilities through formal partnership agreements, (iii) improving data sharing through shared health information systems, (iv) incentives and subsidies, (v) capacity building, (vi) creating norms, guidelines, and regulations and (vii) conducting joint monitoring and evaluation. Many of these outlined overlapping concepts are not exclusive to one behaviour, thus, it is evident that when targeted, there is the potential to improve numerous governance behaviours. This further reiterates the view that the governance behaviours should be understood as connected and not unrelated areas. Conclusions: The study provides insight into the perceptions of respondents from select African countries on the governance environment for private sector engagement in health. These findings can inform the development of strategies and interventions to support and enhance private sector engagement in health in the region.

Where Is Equity in HiAP? Comment on "A Realist Explanatory Case Study Investigating How Common Goals, Leadership, and Committed Staff Facilitate Health in All Policies Implementation in the Municipality of Kuopio, Finland".

Health equity is no longer a central feature of Health in All Policies (HiAP) approaches despite its presence in select definitions of HiAP. In other words, HiAP is not just about considering health, but also health equity. But as HiAP has become more mainstream, its success around health equity has been muted and largely non-existent. Given the normative underpinning and centrality of equity in HiAP, equity should be better considered in HiAP and particularly when considering what 'successful' implementation may look like. Raising health on the radar of policy-makers is not mutually exclusive from considering equity. Taking an incremental approach to considering equity in HiAP can yield positive results. This article discusses these ideas and presents potential actions to restore HiAP's once central equity objectives, which include: seeking synergies focused on health equity with those who hold different convictions, both in terms of goals and measures of success; considering the conditions that allow HiAP to be fostered, such as good governance; and drawing on research on HiAP and other multisectoral approaches.

Health Equity Cannot Be Sought Without the Consideration of Racism In Equity-Focused Urban Health Initiatives.

Given that racism is present worldwide, we believe it is imperative to address racism in the pursuit of health equity in cities. Despite the strengths of global urban health efforts in improving health equity, these initiatives can be furthered by explicitly considering systemic racism. Because racism is a major contributor to health issues, utilizing critical race theory (CRT) and taking an anti-racist perspective can help key players understand how racial health differences are initiated and sustained, which will subsequently inform solutions in seeking to address urban health inequities. Applying CRT within policymaking can happen in a variety of ways that are explored in this article. Ultimately, by acknowledging and responding to the effect of racism on groups within cities and the increased difficulties racialized minorities face, international players may use their power to transfer data and resources to cities that could benefit from specialized support.

Conceptual approaches in combating health inequity: A scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: What are the different ways in which health equity can be sought through policy and programs? Although there is a central focus on health equity in global and public health, we recognize that stakeholders can understand health equity as taking different approaches and that there is not a single conceptual approach. However, information on conceptual categories of actions to improve health equity and/or reduce health inequity is scarce. Therefore, this study asks the research question: "what conceptual approaches exist in striving for health equity and/or reducing health inequity?" with the aim of presenting a comprehensive overview of approaches. METHODS: A scoping review will be undertaken following the PRISMA guidelines for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) and in consultation with a research librarian. Both the peer-reviewed and grey literatures will be searched using: Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus, PAIS Index (ProQuest), JSTOR, Canadian Public Documents Collection, the World Health Organization IRIS (Institutional Repository for Information Sharing), and supplemented by a Google Advanced Search. Screening will be conducted by two independent reviewers and data will be charted, coded, and narratively synthesized. DISCUSSION: We anticipate developing a foundational document compiling categories of approaches and discussing the nuances inherent in each conceptualization to promote clarified and united action.

Probing key informants' views of health equity within the World Health Organization's Urban HEART initiative.

To date, no studies have assessed how those involved in the World Health Organization's (WHO) work understand the concept of health equity. To fill the gap, this research poses the question, "how do Urban Health Equity Assessment and Response Tool (Urban HEART) key informants understand the concept of health equity?", with Urban HEART being selected given the focus on health equity. To answer this question, this study undertakes synchronous electronic interviews with key informants to assess how they understand health equity within the context of Urban HEART. Key findings demonstrate that: (i) equity is seen as a core value and inequities were understood to be avoidable, systematic, unnecessary, and unfair; (ii) there was a questionable acceptance of need to act, given that political sensitivity arose around acknowledging inequities as "unnecessary"; (iii) despite this broader understanding of the key aspects of health inequity, the concept of health equity was seen as vague; (iv) the recognized vagueness inherent in the concept of health equity may be due to various factors including country differences; (v) how the terms "health inequity" and "health inequality" were used varied drastically; and (vi) when speaking about equity, a wide range of aspects emerged. Moving forward, it would be important to establish a shared understanding across key terms and seek clarification, prior to any global health initiatives, whether explicitly focused on health equity or not.

An umbrella review of intersectoral and multisectoral approaches to health policy.

Despite the widespread acceptance of the need for intersectoral and multisectoral approaches, knowledge around how to support, achieve, and sustain multisectoral action is limited. While there have been studies that seek to collate evidence on multisectoral action with a specific focus (e.g., Health in All Policies [HiAP]), we postulated that successes of working cross-sectorally to achieve health goals with one approach can glean insights and perhaps translate to other approaches which work across sectors (i.e., shared insights across HiAP, Healthy Cities, One Health, and other approaches). Thus, the goal of this study is to assemble evidence from systematic approaches to reviewing the literature (e.g., scoping review, systematic review) that collate findings on facilitators/enablers of and barriers to implementing various intersectoral and multisectoral approaches to health, to strengthen understanding of how to best implement health policies that work across sectors, whichever they may be. This umbrella review (i.e., review of reviews) was informed by the PRISMA guidelines for scoping reviews, yielding 10 studies included in this review. Enablers detailed are: (1) systems for liaising and engaged communication; (2) political leadership; (3) shared vision or common goals (win-win strategies); (4) education and access to information; and (5) funding. Barriers detailed were: (1) lack of shared vision across sectors; (2) lack of funding; (3) lack of political leadership; (4) lack of ownership and accountability; and (5) insufficient and unavailable indicators and data. These findings provide a rigorous evidence base for policymakers to inform intersectoral and multisectoral approaches to not only aid in the achievement of goals, such as the Sustainable Development Goals, but to work towards health equity.

Evaluating healthy cities: A scoping review protocol.

BACKGROUND: The Healthy Cities project supports municipal policymakers in the struggle to safeguard the health of urban citizens around the world (and in other limited geographies such as islands). Although Healthy Cities has been implemented in thousands of settings, no synthesis of implementation experiences have been conducted. In this article, we develop a scoping review protocol that can be applied to collect evidence on process evaluations of Healthy Cities. METHODS: To develop a scoping review protocol that could identify experiences evaluating the Healthy Cities project, we followed the PRISMA guidelines for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). We applied these guidelines in consultation with a research librarian to design a search of the peer-reviewed literature, specifically Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, and Scopus databases, and a grey literature search. DISCUSSION: In addition to the aim of collecting evidence on Healthy Cities process evaluation experiences, the broader goal is to spark discussions and inform future evaluations of Healthy Cities. This work can also inform other evaluations of initiatives seeking to raise socio-political change, such as those focused on enhancing intersectoral and multisectoral action.

Cross country lessons sharing on practices, challenges and innovation in primary health care revitalization and universal health coverage implementation among 18 countries in the WHO African Region.

The fifth health sector directors´ policy and planning meeting for the World Health Organization (WHO) regional office for Africa convened to focus on building health system resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic to ensure continuity of essential health services, primary health care (PHC) revitalization, and health system strengthening towards achieving universal health coverage (UHC). In this paper, we present short summaries and experiences shared by 18 countries, for which their practices and outcomes have been documented in this manuscript. These actions are aligned with six key themes: (i) defining and making more essential health services available, (ii) increasing service coverage targeting hard to reach populations, (iii) financial risk protection, (iv) improving user satisfaction with services, (v) improving health security, and (vi) improving coverage with health-related sector services. It is through these shared country experiences that lessons are learned that can influence the region´s work and advancement to achieve UHC through a PHC approach.

Improving Health Equity by Screening for Poverty: A Survey of Family Physician Screening Behaviors and Perceptions in Toronto, Canada.

Purpose: Given the importance of socioeconomic status in both directly and indirectly influencing one's health, "poverty screening" by family physicians (FPs) may be one viable option to improve patient health. However, rates of screening for poverty are low, and reported barriers to screening are numerous. This study sought to collate and investigate reasons for refraining from screening among FPs, many of whom had opted into a Targeted Poverty Screening (TPS) Program, to be able to enhance uptake of the intervention. The TPS Program is a "targeted screening and referral process," whereby medical charts of adult patients residing in "deprived neighborhoods," as determined by postal code, were flagged for screening for FPs who elected to partake in the program. Methods: A survey containing 15 questions was developed through an iterative process with pilot-testing by faculty physicians. The survey was administered to FPs registered in the North York Family Health Team (NYFHT) using Qualtrics© research software. Results: Half of the respondents (n=19/38; 50%) indicated that they enrolled in the TPS program. Irrespective of enrollment in the TPS Program, the majority of respondents (n=31/38; 81.6%) stated that they elect to screen their patients for poverty using the evidence-based question of "do you have difficulty making ends meet at the end of the month?." Among those not enrolled in the program, 84.2% (n=16/19) of respondents indicated that they screened their patients for poverty and 15.8% (n=3/19) indicated they did not. Among respondents who said they did not screen (n=7/38; 18.4%), the reasons for not screening patients were as follows: forgot (n=2; 28.6%); time constraints/feel uncomfortable asking (n=1; 14.3%); and "feel I know patients well" (n=1; 14.3%). For the remaining respondents, a nurse or locum did the screening as part of a periodic health review (i.e., patient was screened, but not by the FP completing the survey (n=3). Conclusion: This study yielded numerous insights, such as barriers faced by FPs in undertaking poverty screening that differs from the literature. The findings suggest that (1) barriers faced by FPs in poverty screening can be mitigated, (2) there is a need to integrate screening into routines and normalize the activity, and (3) there is a need for enhanced training to support patients of lower socioeconomic status.

Intersectoral and multisectoral approaches to health policy: an umbrella review protocol.

BACKGROUND: It is widely recognized that one's health is influenced by a multitude of nonmedical factors, known as the social determinants of health (SDH). The SDH are defined as "the conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work and age, and which are shaped by the distribution of money, power and resources at global, national and local levels". Despite their influence on health, most of the SDH are targeted through government departments and ministries outside of the traditional health sector (e.g. education, housing). As such, the need for intersectoral and multisectoral approaches arises. Intersectoral and multisectoral approaches are thought to be essential to addressing many global health challenges our world faces today and achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. There are various ways of undertaking intersectoral and multisectoral action, but there are three widely recognized approaches (Health in All Policies [HiAP], Healthy Cities, and One Health) that each have a unique focus. However, despite the widespread acceptance of the need for intersectoral and multisectoral approaches, knowledge around how to support, achieve and sustain multisectoral action is limited. The goal of this study is to assemble evidence from systematic approaches to reviewing the literature (e.g. scoping review, systematic review) that collate findings on facilitators/enablers and barriers to implementing various intersectoral and multisectoral approaches to health, to strengthen understanding of how to best implement health policies that work across sectors, whichever they may be. METHODS: An umbrella review (i.e. review of reviews) is to be undertaken to collate findings from the peer-reviewed literature, specifically from Ovid MEDLINE and Scopus databases. This umbrella review protocol was developed following the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P), and study design informed by the PRISMA guidelines for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR). DISCUSSION: Countries that employ multisectoral approaches are better able to identify and address issues around poverty, housing and others, by working collaboratively across sectors, with multisectoral action by governments thought to be required to achieve health equity.

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.

Policy responses to COVID-19 present a window of opportunity for a paradigm shift in global health policy: An application of the Multiple Streams Framework as a heuristic.

Drawing on Kingdon's Multiple Streams Framework as a heuristic, this article reviews the three streams - problems, policies, and politics - as applied to the adoption of economic policies in response to the socioeconomic impacts of COVID-19. In doing so, we argue that we are currently presented with a window of opportunity to better address the social determinants of health. First, through assessing the problem stream, an understanding of inequity as a problem gained wider recognition through the disproportionate impacts of COVID-19. Second, in the policy stream, we demonstrate that appropriate and unprecedented policies can be enacted even in the face of changing evidence or evidentiary uncertainty, which are needed to address upstream factors that influence health. Lastly, in the politics stream, we demonstrate that addressing a public health 'problem' can be well-received by the public, making it politically viable. However, it is important to ensure the 'problem' is clearly relayed to the public and that this information is not perceived to change, as this can undermine trust. The social, political, and behavioural lessons presented by the COVID-19 pandemic should be drawn on in this pivotal moment for global public health.

Utilizing asynchronous email interviews for health research: overview of benefits and drawbacks.

OBJECTIVE: Through collating observations from various studies and complementing these findings with one author's study, a detailed overview of the benefits and drawbacks of asynchronous email interviewing is provided. Through this overview, it is evident there is great potential for asynchronous email interviews in the broad field of health, particularly for studies drawing on expertise from participants in academia or professional settings, those across varied geographical settings (i.e. potential for global public health research), and/or in circumstances when face-to-face interactions are not possible (e.g. COVID-19). RESULTS: Benefits of asynchronous email interviewing and additional considerations for researchers are discussed around: (i) access transcending geographic location and during restricted face-to-face communications; (ii) feasibility and cost; (iii) sampling and inclusion of diverse participants; (iv) facilitating snowball sampling and increased transparency; (v) data collection with working professionals; (vi) anonymity; (vii) verification of participants; (viii) data quality and enhanced data accuracy; and (ix) overcoming language barriers. Similarly, potential drawbacks of asynchronous email interviews are also discussed with suggested remedies, which centre around: (i) time; (ii) participant verification and confidentiality; (iii) technology and sampling concerns; (iv) data quality and availability; and (v) need for enhanced clarity and precision.

Scoping review of the World Health Organization's underlying equity discourses: apparent ambiguities, inadequacy, and contradictions.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Given the heightened rhetorical prominence the World Health Organization has afforded to equity in the past half-century, it is important to better understand how equity has been referred to and its conceptual underpinning, which may have broader global implications. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Articles were included if they met inclusion criteria - chiefly the explicit discussion of the WHO's concept of health equity, for example in terms of conceptualization and/or definitions. Articles which mentioned health equity in the context of WHO's programs, policies, and so on, but did not discuss its conceptualization or definition were excluded. SOURCES OF EVIDENCE: We focused on peer-reviewed literature by scanning Ovid MEDLINE and SCOPUS databases, and supplementing by hand-search. RESULTS: Results demonstrate the WHO has held - and continues to hold - ambiguous, inadequate, and contradictory views of equity that are rooted in different theories of social justice. CONCLUSIONS: Moving forward, the WHO should revaluate its conceptualization of equity and normative position, and align its work with Amartya Sen's Capabilities Approach, as it best encapsulates the broader views of the organization. Further empirical research is needed to assess the WHO interpretations and approaches to equity.

Building health system resilience in the context of primary health care revitalization for attainment of UHC: proceedings from the Fifth Health Sector Directors' Policy and Planning Meeting for the WHO African Region.

BACKGROUND: The recent 2018 Declaration of Astana recognized primary health care (PHC) as a means to achieve universal health coverage (UHC) and the health-related Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Following this declaration, country progress on operationalization of the PHC agenda and attainment of UHC has been stalled by the new challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic has also disrupted the continuity of essential health service provision and tested the resilience of the region's health systems. METHODS: In accordance with this, the WHO Regional Office for Africa convened the Fifth Health Sector Directors' Planning and Policy Meeting across the 47 Member States of the Region. The two-day forum focused on building health system resilience to facilitate service continuity during health threats, PHC revitalization, and health systems strengthening towards UHC. RESULTS: The Regional Forum provided evidence on building resilient health systems in the WHO African Region and engaged participants in meaningful and critical discussion. It is from these discussions that four key themes emerged: (1) working multisectorally/intersectorally, (2) moving from fragmentation to integration, (3) ensuring implementation and knowledge exchange, and (4) rethinking resilience and embracing antifragility. These discussions and associated groupings by thematic areas lend themselves to recommendations for the WHO. CONCLUSIONS: This paper details the proceedings and key findings on building resilient health systems, the four themes that emerged from participant deliberation, and the recommendations that have emerged from the meeting. Deliberations from the Regional Forum are critical, as they have the potential to directly inform policy and program design, given that the meeting convenes health sector technocrats, who are at the helm of policy design, action, and implementation.