RESUMO
In this topical review, we integrate 3 concepts-public health practice, community engagement, and cross-sector governance-to consider the following question: What is the underlying relationship between public health and cross-sector governance according to which the field can understand the role of community engagement in achieving health equity? We begin with an overview of public health practice and the practice of community engagement. Next, we position these practices in the broader turn toward cross-sector governance. The integration of these themes reveals that common tools for community engagement fail to address questions about how services should be funded, how resources should be distributed, and which members of the community have a claim to services. We therefore suggest that distinguishing between community engagement for equity and equitable community engagement is a first step toward deepening dialogue about the role of public health in achieving health equity.
Assuntos
Participação da Comunidade , Equidade em Saúde , Prática de Saúde Pública , Humanos , Participação da Comunidade/métodos , Saúde PúblicaRESUMO
Selected patients with early-stage melanoma have a "hidden high risk" of poor oncologic outcomes. They might benefit from clinical trials, and ultimately, if warranted by trial results, judicious everyday use of adjuvant therapy. A promising tool to identify these individuals is the immunoprint® assay. This immunohistochemical 7-biomarker prognostic test was clinically validated in three independent cohorts (N = 762) to classify early-stage patients as high-risk or low-risk regarding melanoma recurrence and mortality. Using College of American Pathologists (CAP) recommendations, we analytically validated this assay in primary melanoma specimens (N = 20 patients). We assessed assay precision by determining consistency of risk classification under repeated identical conditions (repeatability) or across varying conditions (reproducibility), involving separate assay runs, operators (laboratory scientists), and/or observers (e.g., dermatopathologists). Reference classification was followed by five analytical validation phases: intra-run/intra-operator, intra-observer, inter-run, inter-operator, and inter-observer. Concordance of classifications in each phase was assessed via Fleiss' kappa (primary endpoint) and percent agreement (secondary endpoint). Seven-marker signature classification demonstrated high consistency across validation categories (Fleiss' kappa 0.864-1.000; overall percent agreement 95-100%), in 9/10 cases, exceeding, and in 1/10 cases, closely approaching, CAP's recommended 0.9 level. The 7-marker assay has now been verified to provide excellent repeatability, reproducibility, and precision, besides having been clinically validated.