Using the Power Wheel as a transformative tool to promote equity through spaces and places of patient engagement.

BACKGROUND: Patient engagement is the active collaboration between patient partners and health system partners towards a goal of making decisions that centre patient needs-thus improving experiences of care, and overall effectiveness of health services in alignment with the Quintuple Aim. An important but challenging aspect of patient engagement is including diverse perspectives particularly those experiencing health inequities. When such populations are excluded from decision-making in health policy, practice and research, we risk creating a healthcare ecosystem that reinforces structural marginalisation and perpetuates health inequities. APPROACH: Despite the growing body of literature on knowledge coproduction, few have addressed the role of power relations in patient engagement and offered actionable steps for engaging diverse patients in an inclusive way with a goal of improving health equity. To fill this knowledge gap, we draw on theoretical concepts of power, our own experience codesigning a novel model of patient engagement that is equity promoting, Equity Mobilizing Partnerships in Community, and extensive experience as patient partners engaged across the healthcare ecosystem. We introduce readers to a new conceptual tool, the Power Wheel, that can be used to analyse the interspersion of power in the places and spaces of patient engagement. CONCLUSION: As a tool for ongoing praxis (reflection +action), the Power Wheel can be used to report, reflect and resolve power asymmetries in patient-partnered projects, thereby increasing transparency and illuminating opportunities for equitable transformation and social inclusion so that health services can meet the needs and priorities of all people.

Defining "Essential Digital Health for the Underserved".

The World Health Organization envisions achieving "Health for All," to strive for equitable access to important health information and services to attain wellness (WHO 2023a). The COVID-19 pandemic reshaped the Canadian health system toward increasing digital health services, which improved access for some but underserved others. Integrating digital health into holistic health services delivery deserves careful consideration. This paper introduces the concept of "essential digital health for the underserved," by first defining the terms "digital health," "essential" and "underserved." Then, we share a summary of a discussion at a May 2023 conference with stakeholders, including patients, caregivers, health professionals, health policy makers, private sectors and health researchers. A series of papers follow to explore how digital health can help chart a responsible course for the future of essential digital health in Canada. In this post-pandemic era - with a health human resources shortage through attrition and retirement, an increased health service demand from patients and a greater strain on our recovering economy - innovative solutions need to be implemented to strengthen our Canadian health system.

Learning Health Systems: A Paradigm Shift in What We Can Do about Digital Health Inequities.

Learning health systems (LHSs) embed social accountability into everyday workflows and can inform how governments build bridges across the digital health divide. They shape partnerships using rapid cycles of data-driven learning to respond to patients' calls to action for equity from digital health. Adopting the LHS approach involves re-distributing power, which is likely to be met with resistance. We use the LHS example of British Columbia's 811 services to highlight how infrastructure was created to provide care and answer questions about access to digital health, outcomes from it and the financial impact passed on to patients. In the concluding section, we offer an accountability framework that facilitates partnerships in making digital health more equitable.

#HowNotToDoPatientEngagement: the engaging with purpose patient engagement framework based on a twitter analysis of community perspectives on patient engagement.

BACKGROUND: Evaluation of patient engagement practices are frequently researcher-driven, researcher-funded, and asymmetric in power dynamics. Little to no literature on patient experiences in patient engagement exist that is are not framed by institutionally-driven research inquiries (i.e., from the lens of a research team lead, or healthcare administrative setting). Understanding these perspectives can help us understand: (i)what matters to patients when they are engaged in research; (ii)why it matters to them, and(iii) how to improve patient engagement practices, so that the needs and priorities of patients are consistently met. METHODS: This is a patient partner-initiated study. Study authors (including patient partners) conducted a conventional and summative content analysis of textual data retrieved from a highly engaged conversation on Twitter regarding the hashtags #HowNotToDoPatientEngagement and #HowToDoPatientEngagement posted between February 2018 to June 2021. Twitter is a microblogging platform that allows for free-flowing discussions between users not pre-bound by specific community groupings (like within that of Facebook). RESULTS: A total of 276 tweets were retrieved from 178 separate contributors across seven geographical locations. Four stakeholder groups were identified. We generated 24 codes, nine subthemes and five overarching themes: respect, support, collaboration, inclusivity and impact. Four of these themes are closely aligned with the Strategy for Patient Oriented (SPOR) Patient Engagement framework. We identify impact as a separate and new theme. INTERPRETATION: Based on our findings we offer the Engaging with Purpose Patient Engagement Framework that defines and describes respect, support, collaboration, inclusivity and impact as five key pillars of meaningful patient engagement.

Patient engagement in research is an important aspect of healthcare, but most studies on the topic are driven by researchers and healthcare settings. We wanted to understand patient experiences of patient engagement from the lens of patient partners that occurred outside the traditional norms of evaluating such engagements. To do this, we analyzed data from Twitter, a platform where users freely share their thoughts and opinions. Posts that included the hashtags #HowNotToDoPatientEngagement and #HowToDoPatientEngagement were of focus because they resonated with members of the online patient partner community who wanted to improve the current state of patient partnership. We identified 276 tweets from 178 contributors across seven geographic locations. Five themes emerged from the study: respect, support, collaboration, inclusivity, and impact which led to the development of the Engaging with Purpose Patient Engagement Framework. This framework highlights respect, support, collaboration, inclusivity, and impact as the five essential pillars of meaningful patient engagement in research. By understanding and implementing these pillars, researchers and institutions can improve patient engagement practices and ensure that the needs and priorities of patients are effectively addressed.

Recommandations pour des soins préventifs pour promouvoir l'équité en matière de santé.

CONTEXTE: Malgré des investissements importants dans un système de soins de santé public qui comprend des services préventifs, on continue d'observer des disparités évitables en matière de santé au Canada. L'équipe avait pour objectif de formuler des recommandations pour des soins de santé préventifs qui puissent améliorer l'équité en matière de santé par la priorisation des interventions efficaces à l'intention des groupes défavorisés. MÉTHODES: La ligne directrice a été élaborée par un comité composé de spécialistes en soins primaires et de membres de la patientèle, avec la contribution d'un groupe de patientes-et patientspartenaires ayant vécu diverses expériences. Après avoir sélectionné les sujets à prioriser, nous avons recensé les revues systématiques, les essais randomisés et contrôlés récents sur les méthodes de dépistage et d'autres études pertinentes sur l'efficacité du dépistage et de la prise en charge. Nous avons utilisé l'approche GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) pour formuler les recommandations et avons suivi le guide AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation) pour rédiger le rapport. Il en a été de même avec les principes du Guidelines International Network pour la gestion des intérêts concurrents. Les recommandations ont été passées en revue par un comité externe d'experts en contenu avant d'être distribuées à des intervenants à l'échelle nationale pour approbation. RECOMMANDATIONS: Nous avons formulé 15 recommandations concernant le dépistage et d'autres soins préventifs et 1 recommandation de nature politique visant à améliorer l'accès aux soins primaires. Ainsi, nous recommandons de prioriser une stratégie de communication pour le dépistage du cancer colorectal à partir de l'âge de 45 ans et pour l'évaluation du risque de maladie cardiovasculaire pour lutter contre les iniquités en matière de santé et promouvoir la santé. Les interventions particulières qui devraient être déployées pour lutter contre les iniquités comprennent l'autodépistage du virus du papillome humain (VPH) et du VIH, et le test de libération de l'interféron γ pour l'infection tuberculeuse. Le dépistage de la dépression, de la toxicomanie, de la violence conjugale et de la pauvreté devrait également permettre aux personnes touchées d'accéder plus facilement à des interventions éprouvées. Nous recommandons une prise de contact systématique avec des professionnels de la santé en soins primaires pour les personnes défavorisées. INTERPRÉTATION: Les interventions préventives éprouvées peuvent aider à combattre les iniquités en matière de santé si la priorité est accordée aux personnes défavorisées. Les médecins, les organisations de santé et les gouvernements devraient adopter des mesures fondées sur des données probantes et en faire le suivi s'ils veulent promouvoir l'équité en matière de santé partout au Canada.

Preventive care recommendations to promote health equity.

BACKGROUND: Avoidable disparities in health outcomes persist in Canada despite substantial investments in a publicly funded health care system that includes preventive services. Our objective was to provide preventive care recommendations that promote health equity by prioritizing effective interventions for people experiencing disadvantages. METHODS: The guideline was developed by a primary care provider-patient panel, with input from a patient-partner panel with diverse lived experiences. After selecting priority topics, we searched for systematic reviews and recent randomized controlled trials of screening and other relevant studies of screening accuracy and management efficacy. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to develop recommendations and followed the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) reporting guidance. We managed competing interests using the Guideline International Network principles. The recommendations were externally reviewed by content experts and circulated for endorsement by national stakeholders. RECOMMENDATIONS: We developed 15 screening and other preventive care recommendations and 1 policy recommendation on improving access to primary care. We recommend prioritized outreach for colorectal cancer screening starting at age 45 years and for cardiovascular disease risk assessment, to help address inequities and promote health. Specific interventions that should be rolled out in ways that address inequities include human papillomavirus (HPV) self-testing, HIV self-testing and interferon-γ release assays for tuberculosis infection. Screening for depression, substance use, intimate partner violence and poverty should help connect people experiencing specific disadvantages with proven interventions. We recommend automatic connection to primary care for people experiencing disadvantages. INTERPRETATION: Proven preventive care interventions can address health inequities if people experiencing disadvantages are prioritized. Clinicians, health care organizations and governments should take evidence-based actions and track progress in promoting health equity across Canada.

Interventions Designed to Increase the Uptake of Lung Cancer Screening: An Equity-Oriented Scoping Review.

Introduction: Participation in lung cancer screening (LCS) is lower in populations with the highest burden of lung cancer risk (through the social patterning of smoking behavior) and lowest levels of health care utilization (through structurally inaccessible care) leading to a widening of health inequities. Methods: We conducted a scoping review using the Arksey and O'Malley methodological framework to inform equitable access to LCS by illuminating knowledge and implementation gaps in interventions designed to increase the uptake of LCS. We comprehensively searched for LCS interventions (Ovid Medline, Excerpta Medica database, the Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Scopus from 2000 to June 22, 2021) and included peer-reviewed articles and gray literature published in the English language that describe an intervention designed to increase the uptake of LCS, charted data using our previously published tool and conduced a health equity analysis to determine the intended-unintended and positive-negative outcomes of the interventions for populations experiencing the greatest inequities. Results: Our search yielded 3572 peer-reviewed articles and 54,292 pieces of gray literature. Ultimately, we included 35 peer-reviewed articles and one gray literature. The interventions occurred in the United States, United Kingdom, Japan, and Italy, focusing on shared decision-making, the use of electronic health records as reminders, patient navigation, community-based campaigns, and mobile computed tomography scanners. We developed an equity-oriented LCS framework and mapped the dimensions and outcomes of the interventions on access to LCS on the basis of approachability, acceptability, availability, affordability, and appropriateness of the intervention. No intervention was mapped across all five dimensions. Most notably, knowledge and implementation gaps were identified in dimensions of acceptability, availability, and affordability. Conclusions: Interventions that were most effective in improving access to LCS targeted priority populations, raised community-level awareness, tailored materials for sociocultural acceptability, did not depend on prior patient engagement/registration with the health care system, proactively considered costs related to participation, and enhanced utilization through informed decision-making.

Virtual Care and Electronic Patient Communication During COVID-19: Cross-sectional Study of Inequities Across a Canadian Tertiary Cancer Center.

BACKGROUND: Virtual care (VC) visits (telephone or video) and email-based patient communication have been rapidly adopted to facilitate cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Inequities in access and patient experience may arise as these digital health tools become prevalent. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to characterize inequities in access and patient-reported experience following adoption of digital health tools at a tertiary cancer center during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We designed a cross-sectional study of outpatients with visits from September to December 2020. Patient characteristics and responses to an email-based patient-experience survey were collated. Inequities in access were assessed across three pairs of comparison groups: (1) patients with VC and in-person visits, (2) patients with and without documented email addresses, and (3) responders and nonresponders to the survey. Inequities in patient-reported experience were assessed among survey responders. Demographics were mapped to area-level averages from national census data. Socioeconomic status was mapped to area-level dimensions of the Canadian Index of Multiple Deprivation. Covariate balance between comparison groups was assessed using standardized mean differences (SMDs), with SMD≥0.2 indicating differences between groups. Associations between patient experience satisfaction scores and covariates were assessed using multivariable analyses, with P<.05 indicating statistical significance. RESULTS: Among the 42,194 patients who had outpatient visits, 62.65% (n=26,435) had at least one VC visit and 31.15% (n=13,144) were emailable. Access to VC and email was similar across demographic and socioeconomic indices (SMD<0.2). Among emailable patients, 21.84% (2870/13,144) responded to the survey. Survey responsiveness was similar across indices, aside from a small difference by age (SMD=0.24). Among responders, 24.4% received VC and were similar to in-person responders across indices (SMD<0.2). VC and in-person responders had similar satisfaction levels with all care domains surveyed (all P>.05). Regardless of visit type, patients had variable satisfaction with care domains across demographic and socioeconomic indices. Patients with higher ethnocultural composition scores were less satisfied with the cultural appropriateness of their care (odds ratio [OR] 0.70, 95% CI 0.57-0.86). Patients with higher situational vulnerability scores were less satisfied with discussion of physical symptoms (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.48-0.93). Patients with higher residential instability scores were less satisfied with discussion of both physical (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.68-0.97) and emotional (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.77-0.96) symptoms, and also with the duration of their visit (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74-0.98; P=.02). Male patients were more satisfied with how their health care provider had listened to them (OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.11-2.44; P=.01). CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of VC and email can equitably maintain access and patient-reported experience in cancer care across demographics and socioeconomic indices. Existing health inequities among structurally marginalized patients must continue to be addressed to improve their care experience.

Equity-Mobilizing Partnerships in Community (EMPaCT): Co-Designing Patient Engagement to Promote Health Equity.

Equity-Mobilizing Partnerships in Community (EMPaCT) is a novel approach to patient engagement that centres diverse lived experiences and promotes equity-oriented and inclusive partnerships. As an independent community table, EMPaCT is made up primarily of patients/diverse members of community. Researchers and other decision makers come to this table with their projects to learn how to make their project more inclusive and equitable. In this paper, we detail how we used participatory co-design to define, build and grow EMPaCT as an innovative and scalable patient partnership model that promotes bottom-up action for health equity.

Toward equity-oriented cancer care: a Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR) protocol to promote equitable access to lung cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Screening for lung cancer with low dose CT can facilitate the detection of early-stage lung cancers that are amenable to treatment, reducing mortality related to lung cancer. Individuals are considered eligible for lung cancer screening if they meet specific high-risk criteria, such as age and smoking history. Population groups that are at highest risk of lung cancer, and therefore, the target of lung cancer screening interventions, are also the least likely to participate in lung cancer screening. This can lead to a widening of health inequities. Deliberate effort is needed to both reduce lung cancer risk (through upstream interventions that promote smoking cessation) as well as midstream interventions that promote equitable access to lung cancer screening. METHODS: This protocol paper describes an equity-informed patient-oriented research study. Our study aims to promote equitable access to lung cancer screening by partnering with patients to co-design an e-learning module for healthcare providers. The learning module will describe the social context of lung cancer risk and promote access to lung cancer screening by increasing equity at the point of care. We have applied the Generative Co-Design Framework for Healthcare Innovation and detail our study processes in three phases and six steps: Pre-design (establishing a study governance structure); Co-design (identifying research priorities, gathering and interpreting data, co-developing module content); and Post-design (pilot testing the module and developing an implementation plan). DISCUSSION: Patient engagement in research can promote the design and delivery of healthcare services that are accessible and acceptable to patients. This is particularly important for lung cancer screening as those at highest risk of developing lung cancer are also those who are least likely to participate in lung cancer screening. By detailing the steps of our participatory co-design journey, we are making visible the processes of our work so that they can be linked to future outcomes and related impact, and inform a wide range of patient co-led processes.

Lung cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in Canada and is responsible for a quarter of all cancer-related deaths in the country. Screening for lung cancer using tools such as a CT scan can allow us to find lung cancers when they are still small and curable. People can receive a lung CT scan depending on how old they are and for how long they have smoked cigarettes. Certain groups of people, particularly those who have fewer resources such as time and money, and those who experience injustice because of who they are and how they look are less likely to participate in lung cancer screening. We can increase participation in lung cancer screening by educating healthcare providers on appropriate and timely ways to talk to patients about lung cancer screening. In this paper, we outline the steps of a patient-partnered study in which many different stakeholders such as patients, providers and policy-makers have come together with a goal to improve equity in access to lung cancer screening. We will do this by jointly creating an online learning module that will educate healthcare providers on how life experiences shape smoking behaviour and lung cancer risk. The module will also impart key skills on how to deliver care which is timely, appropriate and safe. Once the module is ready it will be freely available to all healthcare providers to support the fair and just delivery of lung cancer screening in the province of Ontario and elsewhere.

"My Cancer Is Worth Only Fifteen Weeks"? A Critical Analysis of the Lived Experiences of Financial Toxicity and Cancer in Canada.

BACKGROUND: Cancer patients experience financial hardship due to rising expenses related to cancer treatment and declining income levels associated with reduced employability. Employment Insurance Sick Benefits (EI-SB) is a social income support program which provides temporary income replacement to Canadians when they fall ill. Although EI-SB is designed to maintain continuity of income during an illness, little is known about the perspectives of cancer patients who receive EI-SB. This knowledge can inform the development of public policies which are responsive to the needs and priorities of cancer patients. METHODS: We conducted a theory-informed thematic analysis of data collected from twenty semi-structured interviews with participants who were receiving care in a cancer centre in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia and had received EI-SB. A coding framework was developed using Taplin and colleagues' intermediate outcomes of patient care across the cancer care continuum. Interpretation of findings was guided by the synergies of oppression theoretical lens. RESULTS: Three overarching themes describe the experiences of cancer patients receiving social income support: Economic exclusion, in which the structure of the labour market and social welfare system determine access to workplace benefits and continuity of reasonable income; financial toxicity, a vicious cycle of financial burden and increasing financial distress; and constrained choices, where cancer influences employability and lowered income influences the need to be employed. CONCLUSION: Cancer patients need income support programs that are tailored to match their healthcare priorities. In addition, policies which strengthen working conditions and facilitate a reintegration to work when possible will be important in addressing the structural drivers of income insecurity experienced by cancer patients.

Building Equitable Patient Partnerships during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Challenges and Key Considerations for Research and Policy.

The unequal social and economic burden of the COVID-19 pandemic is evident in racialized and low-income communities across Canada. Importantly, social inequities have not been adequately addressed and current public policies are not reflective of the needs of diverse populations. Public participation in decision-making is crucial and there is, therefore, a pressing need to increase diversity of representation in patient partnerships in order to prevent the further exclusion of socially marginalized groups from research and policy making. Deliberate effort and affirmative action are needed to meaningfully engage and nurture diverse patient partnerships by broadening the scope of the patient community to include excluded or underrepresented individuals or groups. This will help us co-develop ways to enhance access and equity in healthcare and prevent the systematic reproduction of structural inequalities that have already been heightened by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Interventions designed to increase the uptake of lung cancer screening and implications for priority populations: a scoping review protocol.

BACKGROUND: When designing any health intervention, it is important to respond to the unequal determinants of health by prioritising the allocation of resources and tailoring interventions based on the disproportionate burden of illness. This approach, called the targeting of priority populations, can prevent a widening of health inequities, particularly those inequities which can be further widened by differences in the uptake of an intervention. The objective of this scoping review is to describe intervention(s) designed to increase the uptake of lung cancer screening, including the health impact on priority populations and to describe knowledge and implementation gaps to inform the design of equitable lung cancer screening. METHODS: We will conduct a scoping review following the methodological framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley. We will conduct comprehensive searches for lung cancer screening promotion interventions in Ovid Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health (CINAHL) and Scopus. We will include published English language peer-reviewed and grey literature published between January 2000 and 2020 that describe an intervention designed to increase the uptake of low-dose CT (LDCT) lung cancer screening in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries. Articles not in English or not describing LDCT will be excluded. Three authors will review retrieved literature in three steps: title, abstract and then full text. Three additional authors will review discrepancies. Authors will extract data from full-text papers into a chart adapted from the Template for Intervention Description and Republication checklist, the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials and a Health Equity Impact Assessment tool. Findings will be presented using a narrative synthesis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The knowledge synthesised will be used to inform the equitable design of lung cancer screening and disseminated through conferences, publications and shared with relevant partners. The study does not require research ethics approval as literature is available online.

Advancing health equity in cancer care: The lived experiences of poverty and access to lung cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Individuals living with low income are more likely to smoke, have a higher risk of lung cancer, and are less likely to participate in preventative healthcare (i.e., low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for lung cancer screening), leading to equity concerns. To inform the delivery of an organized pilot lung cancer screening program in Ontario, we sought to contextualize the lived experiences of poverty and the choice to participate in lung cancer screening. METHODS: At three Toronto academic primary-care clinics, high-risk screen-eligible patients who chose or declined LDCT screening were consented; sociodemographic data was collected. Qualitative interviews were conducted. Theoretical thematic analysis was used to organize, describe and interpret the data using the morphogenetic approach as a guiding theoretical lens. RESULTS: Eight participants chose to undergo screening; ten did not. From interviews, we identified three themes: Pathways of disadvantage (social trajectories of events that influence lung-cancer risk and health-seeking behaviour), lung-cancer risk and early detection (upstream factors that shape smoking behaviour and lung-cancer screening choices), and safe spaces of care (care that is free of bias, conflict, criticism, or potentially threatening actions, ideas or conversations). We illuminate how 'choice' is contextual to the availability of material resources such as income and housing, and how 'choice' is influenced by having access to spaces of care that are free of judgement and personal bias. CONCLUSION: Underserved populations will require multiprong interventions that work at the individual, system and structural level to reduce inequities in lung-cancer risk and access to healthcare services such as cancer screening.

Perspectives of family physicians towards access to lung cancer screening for individuals living with low income - a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Individuals living with low income are less likely to participate in lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography. Family physicians (FPs) are typically responsible for referring eligible patients to LCS; therefore, we sought to understand their perspectives on access to lung cancer screening for individuals living with low income in order to improve equity in access to LCS. METHODS: A theory-informed thematic analysis was conducted using data collected from 11 semi-structured interviews with FPs recruited from three primary care sites in downtown Toronto. Data was coded using the Systems Model of Clinical Preventative Care as a framework and interpretation was guided by the synergies of oppression analytical lens. RESULTS: Four overarching themes describe FP perspectives on access to LCS for individuals living with low income: the degree of social disadvantage that influences lung cancer risk and opportunities to access care; the clinical encounter, where there is often a mismatch between the complex health needs of low income individuals and structure of health care appointments; the need for equity-oriented health care, illustrated by the neglect of structural origins of health risk and the benefits of a trauma-informed approach; and finally, the multiprong strategies that will be needed in order to improve equity in health outcomes. CONCLUSION: An equity-oriented and interdisciplinary team based approach to care will be needed in order to improve access to LCS, and attention must be given to the upstream determinants of lung cancer in order to reduce lung cancer risk.

Health Equity in National Cancer Control Plans: An Analysis of the Ontario Cancer Plan.

BACKGROUND: National cancer control plans (NCCPs) are important documents that guide strategic priorities in cancer care and plan for the appropriate allocation of resources based on the social, geographic and economic needs of a population. Despite the emphasis on health equity by the World Health Organization (WHO), few NCCPs have a focus on health equity. The Ontario Cancer Plan (OCP) IV, (2015 to 2019) is an example of an NCCP with clearly defined health equity goals and objectives. METHODS: This paper presents a directed-content analysis of the OCP IV health equity goals and objectives, in light of the synergies of oppression analytical framework. RESULTS: The OCP IV confines equity to an issue of access-to-care. As a result, it calls for training, funding, and social support services to increase accessibility for high-risk population groups. However, equity has a broader definition. And as such, it also implies that systematic differences in health outcomes between social groups should be minimal. This is particularly significant given that socially disadvantaged cancer patients in Ontario have distinctly poorer cancer-related health outcomes. CONCLUSION: Health systems are seeking ways to reduce the health equity gap. However, to reduce health inequities which are socially-based will require a recognition of the living and working conditions of patients which influence risk, mortality and survival. NCCPs represent a way to politically advocate for the determinants of health which profoundly influence cancer risk, outcomes and mortality.

Assuming policy responsibility for health equity: local public health action in Ontario, Canada.

In Canada's liberal welfare state the public is given little exposure by governmental authorities to the importance of promoting health equity through public policy action on the social determinants of health (SDoH). Not surprisingly, Canada lags in implementing health equity-enhancing public policy. In Ontario, Canada's most populous province, a local public health unit (PHU) took on the task of promoting health equity by developing the video animation Let's Start a Conversation about Health and Not Talk about Health Care at All. In the wake of this work, an additional 17 local PHUs (of 36) adapted it for local use. By placing these activities within Nutbeam's and de Leeuw's concepts of critical health literacy as an essential component of health promotion, we examine how these PHUs came to adopt the video, their intended uses, and supports and barriers encountered. These efforts by local PHUs to promote health equity through action on the SDoH have implications for those in jurisdictions where State attention to these issues is lacking.

Inequities in genetic testing for hereditary breast cancer: implications for public health practice.

The Ontario Breast Screening Program for women with a genetic predisposition to breast cancer is one of the first international models of a government-funded public health service that offers systematic genetic screening to women at a high risk of breast cancer. However, since the implementation of the program in 2011, enrolment rates have been lower than anticipated. Whilst there may be several reasons for this to happen, it does call into consideration the 'inverse equity law', whereby the more advantaged in society are the first to participate and benefit from universal health services. An outcome of this phenomenon is an increase in the health divide between those that are at a social advantage versus those that are not. Using an intersectionality lens, this paper explores the role of the social determinants of health and social identity in creating possible barriers in the access to genetic screening for hereditary breast cancer, and the implications for public health practice in recognising and ameliorating these differences.

Technology Insight: tuning into the genetic orchestra using microarrays--limitations of DNA microarrays in clinical practice.

Scientific advances in the field of genetics and gene-expression profiling have revolutionized the concept of patient-tailored treatment. Analysis of differential gene-expression patterns across thousands of biological samples in a single experiment (as opposed to hundreds to thousands of experiments measuring the expression of one gene at a time), and extrapolation of these data to answer clinically pertinent questions such as those relating to tumor metastatic potential, can help define the best therapeutic regimens for particular patient subgroups. The use of microarrays provides a powerful technology, allowing in-depth analysis of gene-expression profiles. Currently, microarray technology is in a transition phase whereby scientific information is beginning to guide clinical practice decisions. Before microarrays qualify as a useful clinical tool, however, they must demonstrate reliability and reproducibility. The high-throughput nature of microarray experiments imposes numerous limitations, which apply to simple issues such as sample acquisition and data mining, to more controversial issues that relate to the methods of biostatistical analysis required to analyze the enormous quantities of data obtained. Methods for validating proposed gene-expression profiles and those for improving trial designs represent some of the recommendations that have been suggested. This Review focuses on the limitations of microarray analysis that are continuously being recognized, and discusses how these limitations are being addressed.