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.publishedVersio

Underlying Equity Discourses of the World Health Organization

Background: Globally, increasing attention has been paid to the concept of equity in the context of health, largely stemming from the work of the World Health Organization (WHO) beginning in the late 1970s with the Declaration of Alma-Ata (WHO, 1978) and more recently following the Commission on the Social Determinants of Health (CSDH, 2008) and their final report in 2008. Despite increasing attention to this issue, there is global ambiguity on the true definition of “health inequity”, “health inequalities”, or “health disparities” (Braveman, 2006, p. 167; Braveman & Gruskin, 2003). Methods/Design: This original scoping review clarifies how the WHO conceptualizes equity. It also identifies the theoretical underpinnings guiding the WHO’s approach to equity and its broader implications. This protocol followed the PRISMA guidelines for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) (Tricco et al., 2018), with details discussed in the full protocol. Discussion: To date, much of the research on health equity globally has been restricted to chronological discussions over time or specific research fields (Borde & Hernández, 2018, p. 3). Therefore, researching the WHO’s approach to equity in terms of alignment with theory and broader normative standpoint(s) becomes increasingly important in addressing a gap in the literature. In addition, because the definition of equity in the context of health has practical implications for its operationalization (Guerra, Borde, & Salgado De Snyder, 2016), this work seeks to clarify in the concept of equity used by the WHO in hopes of moving towards a shared understanding to bridge action [e.g. in measurement and accountability (Braveman & Gruskin, 2003)]

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.publishedVersio

A large scale hearing loss screen reveals an extensive unexplored genetic landscape for auditory dysfunction

The developmental and physiological complexity of the auditory system is likely reflected in the underlying set of genes involved in auditory function. In humans, over 150 non-syndromic loci have been identified, and there are more than 400 human genetic syndromes with a hearing loss component. Over 100 non-syndromic hearing loss genes have been identified in mouse and human, but we remain ignorant of the full extent of the genetic landscape involved in auditory dysfunction. As part of the International Mouse Phenotyping Consortium, we undertook a hearing loss screen in a cohort of 3006 mouse knockout strains. In total, we identify 67 candidate hearing loss genes. We detect known hearing loss genes, but the vast majority, 52, of the candidate genes were novel. Our analysis reveals a large and unexplored genetic landscape involved with auditory function

Evolving trends in the management of acute appendicitis during COVID-19 waves. The ACIE appy II study

Background: In 2020, ACIE Appy study showed that COVID-19 pandemic heavily affected the management of patients with acute appendicitis (AA) worldwide, with an increased rate of non-operative management (NOM) strategies and a trend toward open surgery due to concern of virus transmission by laparoscopy and controversial recommendations on this issue. The aim of this study was to survey again the same group of surgeons to assess if any difference in management attitudes of AA had occurred in the later stages of the outbreak. Methods: From August 15 to September 30, 2021, an online questionnaire was sent to all 709 participants of the ACIE Appy study. The questionnaire included questions on personal protective equipment (PPE), local policies and screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection, NOM, surgical approach and disease presentations in 2021. The results were compared with the results from the previous study. Results: A total of 476 answers were collected (response rate 67.1%). Screening policies were significatively improved with most patients screened regardless of symptoms (89.5% vs. 37.4%) with PCR and antigenic test as the preferred test (74.1% vs. 26.3%). More patients tested positive before surgery and commercial systems were the preferred ones to filter smoke plumes during laparoscopy. Laparoscopic appendicectomy was the first option in the treatment of AA, with a declined use of NOM. Conclusion: Management of AA has improved in the last waves of pandemic. Increased evidence regarding SARS-COV-2 infection along with a timely healthcare systems response has been translated into tailored attitudes and a better care for patients with AA worldwide

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

The World Health Organization’s approach to equity: an investigation into the Urban Health Equity Assessment and Response Tool (Urban HEART)

The World Health Organization (WHO), as the most prominent global health institution as a specialized agency of the United Nations, has expressed concern for health equity as part of its mandate, “the attainment by all peoples of the highest possible level of health”. However, there is a lack of clarity around the WHO’s fundamental definition and conceptualization of equity. Through drawing on the WHO’s Urban Health Equity Assessment and Response Tool (Urban HEART) as an illustrative case, the aim is to determine how the WHO operationalizes equity in practice. Preliminary findings suggest there is no consistent understanding of what the goal of Urban HEART is. This research has direct implications for practice: not only can the findings be applied to other global health work that seeks to improve equity, but the WHO is planning to reinstate Urban HEART. As such, this research may be beneficial in guiding these plans. Further, the findings yield an important consideration for global and public health policy and practice more broadly: the need to clarify objectives around equity (e.g. because how equity is defined determines the work undertaken and the populations served)

Rethinking public health pedagogy: lessons learned and pertinent questions

COVID-19 has, understandably, drastically shifted the way our world operates. Inevitably, the field of public health has experienced an explosion of innovation and learning opportunities. For instance, while health studies/public health university programs teach students about health from a social perspective, COVID-19 has afforded new lessons about the field of public health and considerations for educators. This manuscript explores cases of COVID-19 yielding new lessons for students, directly and indirectly, through the author’s position of teaching in the field across two institutions. For example, through the application of COVID-19 to policy theory, we are able to consider how COVID-19 may be a catalyst for policy change in the social determinants of health. Similarly, this manuscript discusses examples learned inadvertently through teaching. For example, the movement of instruction from in-person to online raises equity concerns by enhancing access to education for some, while restricting access to education for others; bringing equity considerations that are inherent in the field to the forefront of teaching. With regard to public health education, COVID-19 presents opportunity for pedagogical improvement both directly and indirectly. However, we must ask ourselves how much reliance on COVID-19 as a topic and a tool for education is too much? COVID-19 has infiltrated essentially every major facet of daily life; should it also be incorporated into nearly all of our lessons? In this manuscript, we present key areas and questions for the consideration of those who engage in public health education, which are applicable inside and outside the (possibly virtual) university classroom

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