Toward an Integrated Framework in Health and Human Rights Education: Transformative Pedagogies in Social Medicine, Collective Health, and Structural Competency.

Global health equity is at a historically tenuous nexus complicated by economic inequality, climate change, mass migration, racialized violence, and global pandemics. Social medicine, collective health, and structural competency are interdisciplinary fields with their own histories and fragmentary implementation in health equity movements situated both locally and globally. In this paper, we review these three fields' historical backgrounds, theoretical underpinnings, and contemporary contributions to global health equity. We believe that intentional dialogue between these fields could promote a generative discourse rooted in a shared understanding of their historical antecedents and theoretical frameworks. We also propose pedagogical tools grounded within our own critical and transformative pedagogies that offer the prospect of bringing these traditions into greater dialogue for the purpose of actualizing the human right to health.

Mobile health technology for hypertension management with Hmong and Latino adults: mixed-methods community-based participatory research.

OBJECTIVE: To identify Hmong and Latino adults' perspectives about a mHealth-based care model for hypertension (HTN) management involving blood pressure (BP) self-monitoring, electronic transmission of BP readings, and responsive HTN medication adjustment by a provider team. DESIGN: We conducted a mixed-methods formative study with 25 Hmong and 25 Latino participants with HTN at an urban federally-qualified health center. We used a tool to assess HTN knowledge and conducted open-ended interviews to identify perspectives about mHealth-based care model. RESULTS: While most participants agreed that lowering high blood pressure decreased the risk of strokes, heart attacks, and kidney failure, there were gaps in medical knowledge. Three major themes emerged about the mHealth-based care model: (1) Using mHealth technology could be useful, especially if assistance was available to patients with technological challenges; (2) Knowing blood pressures could be helpful, especially to patients who agreed with doctors' medical diagnosis and prescribed treatment; (3) Transmitting blood pressures to the clinic and their responsive actions could feel empowering, and the sense of increased surveillance could feel entrapping. Some people may feel empowered since it could increase patient-provider communication without burden of clinic visits and could increase involvement in BP control for those who agree with the medical model of HTN. However, some people may feel entrapped as it could breach patient privacy, interfere with patients' lifestyle choices, and curtail patient autonomy. CONCLUSIONS: In general, Hmong and Latino adults responded positively to the empowering aspects of the mHealth-based care model, but expressed caution for those who had limited technological knowledge, who did not agree with the medical model and who may feel entrapped. In a shared decision-making approach with patients and possibly their family members, health care systems and clinicians should explore barriers and potential issues of empowerment and entrapment when offering a mHealth care model in practice.

Primary care clinicians' perspectives about quality measurements in safety-net clinics and non-safety-net clinics.

BACKGROUND: Quality metrics, pay for performance (P4P), and value-based payments are prominent aspects of the current and future American healthcare system. However, linking clinic payment to clinic quality measures may financially disadvantage safety-net clinics and their patient population because safety-net clinics often have worse quality metric scores than non-safety net clinics. The Minnesota Safety Net Coalition's Quality Measurement Enhancement Project sought to collect data from primary care providers' (PCPs) experiences, which could assist Minnesota policymakers and state agencies as they create a new P4P system. Our research study aims are to identify PCPs' perspectives about 1) quality metrics at safety net clinics and non-safety net clinics, 2) how clinic quality measures affect patients and patient care, and 3) how payment for quality measures may influence healthcare. METHODS: Qualitative interviews with 14 PCPs (4 individual interviews and 3 focus groups) who had worked at both safety net and non-safety net primary care clinics in Minneapolis-St Paul Minnesota USA metropolitan area. Qualitative analyses identified major themes. RESULTS: Three themes with sub-themes emerged. Theme #1: Minnesota's current clinic quality scores are influenced more by patients and clinic systems than by clinicians. Theme #2: Collecting data for a set of specific quality measures is not the same as measuring quality healthcare. Subtheme #2.1: Current quality measures are not aligned with how patients and clinicians define quality healthcare. Theme #3: Current quality measures are a product of and embedded in social and structural inequities in the American health care system. Subtheme #3.1: The current inequitable healthcare system should not be reinforced with financial payments. Subtheme #3.2: Health equity requires new metrics and a new healthcare system. Overall, PCPs felt that the current inequitable quality metrics should be replaced by different metrics along with major changes to the healthcare system that could produce greater health equity. CONCLUSION: Aligning payment with the current quality metrics could perpetuate and exacerbate social inequities and health disparities. Policymakers should consider PCPs' perspectives and create a quality-payment framework that does not disadvantage patients who are affected by social and structural inequities as well as the clinics and providers who serve them.