scholarly journals Health-equity issues related to childhood obesity: a scoping review

2017 ◽  
Vol 77 ◽  
pp. S32-S42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clemencia M. Vargas ◽  
Elsie M. Stines ◽  
Herta S. Granado
Keyword(s):  
Childhood Obesity ◽  
Health Equity ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Equity Issues

Childhood Obesity Research: A Synthetic Scoping Review

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Kokol ◽  
Jernej Završnik ◽  
Helena Blazun Vosner
Keyword(s):  
Childhood Obesity ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Obesity Research

Primary Health Care Models Addressing Health Equity for Immigrants: A Systematic Scoping Review

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 214-230 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ricardo Batista ◽  
Kevin Pottie ◽  
Louise Bouchard ◽  
Edward Ng ◽  
Peter Tanuseputro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Primary Health Care ◽  
Health Equity ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Primary Health ◽  
Health Care Models ◽  
Care Models

scholarly journals A scoping review on disparities in exposure to advertising for e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products and implications for advancing a health equity research agenda

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Graziele Grilo ◽  
Elizabeth Crespi ◽  
Joanna E. Cohen
Keyword(s):  
Sexual Orientation ◽  
Gender Identity ◽  
Health Equity ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Cigarette Advertising ◽  
Urban Rural ◽  
Race Ethnicity ◽  
Advertising And Promotion ◽  
Neighborhood Level

Abstract Background Disparities in exposure to and density of tobacco advertising are well established; however, it is still unclear how e-cigarette and heated tobacco product (HTP) advertising vary by age, education, sex, gender identity, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status (SES), and/or urban/rural area. Through a scoping review, we sought to identify potential disparities in exposure to e-cigarette and HTP advertising and promotion across populations. Methods In January 2020, a systematic literature search was conducted in five databases: PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. The search was updated in October 2020. Articles reporting on exposure to e-cigarette and/or HTP advertising and promotion across age, education, sex, gender identity, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, SES, and/or urban/rural areas were included for full-text review (n = 25). Of those, 15 were deemed relevant for data extraction. Results The majority of the studies were from the U.S. (n = 12) and cross-sectional (n = 14). Studies were published between 2014 and 2020 and focused on determining causal relationships that underlie disparities; only one study assessed HTP advertising and promotion. Exposure to e-cigarette and HTP advertising was assessed at the individual-level (e.g., recall seeing ads on television) and at the neighborhood-level (e.g., ad density at the point-of-sale). Studies addressed differences across age (n = 6), education (n = 2), sex (n = 6), gender identity and sexual orientation (n = 3), race/ethnicity (n = 11), SES (n = 5), and urban/rural (n = 2). The following populations were more likely to be exposed to e-cigarette advertising: youth, those with more than a high school diploma, males, sexual and gender minorities, Whites, and urban residents. At the neighborhood-level, e-cigarette advertisements were more prevalent in non-White neighborhoods. Conclusions Exposure to e-cigarette/HTP advertising varies based on sociodemographic characteristics, although the literature is limited especially regarding HTPs. Higher exposure among youth might increase tobacco-related disparities since it can lead to nicotine/tobacco use. Research should incorporate and apply a health equity lens from its inception to obtain data to inform the elimination of those disparities.

scholarly journals Reporting standards, outcomes and costs of quality improvement studies in Ireland: a scoping review

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. e001319
Author(s):  
Siobhán Eithne McCarthy ◽  
Samira Barbara Jabakhanji ◽  
Jennifer Martin ◽  
Maureen Alice Flynn ◽  
Jan Sørensen
Keyword(s):  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Health Economics ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Quality Criteria ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Reporting Standards ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Equity Issues ◽  
Stakeholder Workshop ◽  
The Cost

ObjectivesTo profile the aims and characteristics of quality improvement (QI) initiatives conducted in Ireland, to review the quality of their reporting and to assess outcomes and costs.DesignScoping review.Data sourcesSystematic searches were conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Google Scholar, Lenus and rian.ie. Two researchers independently screened abstracts (n=379) and separately reviewed 43 studies identified for inclusion using a 70-item critique tool. The tool was based on the Quality Improvement Minimum Quality Criteria Set (QI-MQCS), an appraisal instrument for QI intervention publications, and health economics reporting criteria. After reaching consensus, the final dataset was analysed using descriptive statistics. To support interpretations, findings were presented at a national stakeholder workshop.Eligibility criteriaQI studies implemented and evaluated in Ireland and published between January 2015 and April 2020.ResultsThe 43 studies represented various QI interventions. Most studies were peer-reviewed publications (n=37), conducted in hospitals (n=38). Studies mainly aimed to improve the ‘effectiveness’ (65%), ‘efficiency’ (53%), ‘timeliness’ (47%) and ‘safety’ (44%) of care. Fewer aimed to improve ‘patient-centredness’ (30%), ‘value for money’ (23%) or ‘staff well-being’ (9%). No study aimed to increase ‘equity’. Seventy per cent of studies described 14 of 16 QI-MQCS dimensions. Least often studies reported the ‘penetration/reach’ of an initiative and only 35% reported health outcomes. While 53% of studies expressed awareness of costs, only eight provided at least one quantifiable figure for costs or savings. No studies assessed the cost-effectiveness of the QI.ConclusionIrish QI studies included in our review demonstrate varied aims and high reporting standards. Strategies are needed to support greater stimulation and dissemination of QI beyond the hospital sector and awareness of equity issues as QI work. Systematic measurement and reporting of costs and outcomes can be facilitated by integrating principles of health economics in QI education and guidelines.

scholarly journals Socially-assigned race and health: a scoping review with global implications for population health equity

2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kellee White ◽  
Jourdyn A. Lawrence ◽  
Nedelina Tchangalova ◽  
Shuo J. Huang ◽  
Jason L. Cummings
Keyword(s):  
Population Health ◽  
Health Equity ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Race And Health ◽  
Socially Assigned Race

scholarly journals Organizational level indicators to address health equity work in local public health agencies: A scoping review

2017 ◽  
Vol 108 (3) ◽  
pp. e306-e313 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine Salter ◽  
Rosana Salvaterra ◽  
Deborah Antonello ◽  
Benita E. Cohen ◽  
Anita Kothari ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Health Equity ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Organizational Level ◽  
Local Public Health ◽  
Public Health Agencies ◽  
Health Agencies

scholarly journals The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Health Equity in Oncology: A Scoping Review

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 4934-4934
Author(s):  
Paul Istasy ◽  
Wen Shen Lee ◽  
Alla Iansavitchene ◽  
Ross Upshur ◽  
Bekim Sadikovic ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Equity ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Resource Limited Settings ◽  
Resource Limited ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Introduction: The expanding use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in hematology and oncology research and practice creates an urgent need to consider the potential impact of these technologies on health equity at both local and global levels. Fairness and equity are issues of growing concern in AI ethics, raising problems ranging from bias in datasets and algorithms to disparities in access to technology. The impact of AI on health equity in oncology, however, remains underexplored. We conducted a scoping review to characterize, evaluate, and identify gaps in the existing literature on AI applications in oncology and their implications for health equity in cancer care. Methodology: We performed a systematic literature search of MEDLINE (Ovid) and EMBASE from January 1, 2000 to March 28, 2021 using key terms for AI, health equity, and cancer. Our search was restricted to English language abstracts with no restrictions by publication type. Two reviewers screened a total of 9519 abstracts, and 321 met inclusion criteria for full-text review. 247 were included in the final analysis after assessment by three reviewers. Studies were analysed descriptively, by location, type of cancer and AI application, as well as thematically, based on issues pertaining to health equity in oncology. Results: Of the 247 studies included in our analysis, 150 (60.7%) were based in North America, 57 (23.0%) in Asia, 29 (11.7%) in Europe, 5 (2.1%) in Central/South America, 4 (1.6%) in Oceania, and 2 (0.9%) in Africa. 71 (28.6%) were reviews and commentaries, and 176 were (71.3%) clinical studies. 25 (10.1%) focused on AI applications in screening, 42 (17.0%) in diagnostics, 46 (18.6%) in prognostication, and 7 (2.9%) in treatment. 40 (16.3%) used AI as a tool for clinical/epidemiological research and 87 (35.2%) discussed multiple applications of AI. A diverse range of cancers were represented in the studies, including hematologic malignancies. Our scoping review identified three overarching themes in the literature, which largely focused on how AI might improve health equity in oncology. These included: (1) the potential for AI reduce disparities by improving access to health services in resource-limited settings through applications such as low-cost cancer screening technologies and decision support systems; (2) the ability of AI to mitigate bias in clinical decision-making through algorithms that alert clinicians to potential sources of bias thereby allowing for more equitable and individualized care; (3) the use of AI as a research tool to identify disparities in cancer outcomes based on factors such as race, gender and socioeconomic status, and thus inform health policy. While most of the literature emphasized the positive impact of AI in oncology, there was only limited discussion of AI's potential adverse effects on health equity . Despite engaging with the use of AI in resource-limited settings, ethical issues surrounding data extraction and AI trials in low-resource settings were infrequently raised. Similarly, AI's potential to reinforce bias and widen disparities in cancer care was under-examined despite engagement with related topics of bias in clinical decision-making. Conclusion: The overwhelming majority of the literature identified by our scoping review highlights the benefits of AI applications in oncology, including its potential to improve access to care in low-resource settings, mitigate bias in clinical decision-making, and identify disparities in cancer outcomes. However, AI's potential negative impacts on health equity in oncology remain underexplored: ethical issues arising from deploying AI technologies in low-resources settings, and issues of bias in datasets and algorithms were infrequently discussed in articles dealing with related themes. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Health Equity in Artificial Intelligence and Primary Care Research: Protocol for a Scoping Review (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Xin Wang ◽  
Sulaiman Somani ◽  
Jonathan H Chen ◽  
Sara Murray ◽  
Urmimala Sarkar
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Health Equity ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Underserved Populations ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Preventative Care ◽  
The Impact

BACKGROUND Though artificial intelligence (AI) has potential to augment the patient-physician relationship in primary care, bias in intelligent healthcare systems has the potential to differentially impact vulnerable patient populations. OBJECTIVE The purpose of this scoping review is to summarize the extent to which AI systems in primary care examine the inherent bias towards or against vulnerable populations and appraise how these systems have mitigated the impact of such biases during their development. METHODS We will conduct a search update from an existing scoping review to identify AI and primary care articles in the following databases: Medline-OVID,Embase,CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital Library, MathSciNet, AAAI, and arXiv. Two screeners will independently review all abstracts, titles and full-texts. The team will extract data using structured data extraction form and synthesize the results according to PRISMA-Scr guidelines. RESULTS This review will provide an assessment of the current state of healthcare equity within AI for primary care. Specifically, we will identify the degree to which vulnerable patients have been included, assess how bias is interpreted and documented, and understand the extent harmful biases are addressed. As of October 2020, the scoping review is in the title and abstract screening stage. The results are expected to be submitted for publication in fall of 2021. CONCLUSIONS AI applications in primary care are becoming an increasingly common tool in health care delivery, including in preventative care efforts for underserved populations. This scoping review aims to understand to what extent AI-primary care studies employ a health equity lens and take steps to mitigate bias.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document