Sociodemographic data collection for health equity measurement: a mixed methods study examining public opinions

Monitoring inequalities in healthcare is increasingly being recognized as a key first step in providing equitable access to quality care. However, the detailed sociodemographic data that are necessary for monitoring are currently not routinely collected from patients in many jurisdictions. We undertook a mixed methods study to generate a more in-depth understanding of public opinion on the collection of patient sociodemographic information in healthcare settings for equity monitoring purposes in Ontario, Canada. The study included a provincial survey of 1,306 Ontarians, and in-depth interviews with a sample of 34 individuals. Forty percent of survey participants disagreed that it was important for information to be collected in healthcare settings for equity monitoring. While there was a high level of support for the collection of language, a relatively large proportion of survey participants felt uncomfortable disclosing household income (67%), sexual orientation (40%) and educational background (38%). Variation in perceived importance and comfort with the collection of various types of information was observed among different survey participant subgroups. Many in-depth interview participants were also unsure of the importance of the collection of sociodemographic information in healthcare settings and expressed concerns related to potential discrimination and misuse of this information. Study findings highlight that there is considerable concern regarding disclosure of such information in healthcare settings among Ontarians and a lack of awareness of its purpose that may impede future collection of such information. These issues point to the need for increased education for the public on the purpose of sociodemographic data collection as a strategy to address this problem, and the use of data collection strategies that reduce discomfort with disclosure in healthcare settings

PROTOCOL: In‐person interventions to reduce social isolation and loneliness: An evidence and gap map

Abstract This is the protocol for an evidence and gap map. The objectives are as follows: This EGM aims to map available evidence on the effects of in‐person interventions to reduce social isolation and/or loneliness across all age groups in all settings

In‐person interventions to reduce social isolation and loneliness: An evidence and gap map

BackgroundSocial isolation and loneliness can occur in all age groups, and they are linked to increased mortality and poorer health outcomes. There is a growing body of research indicating inconsistent findings on the effectiveness of interventions aiming to alleviate social isolation and loneliness. Hence the need to facilitate the discoverability of research on these interventions.ObjectivesTo map available evidence on the effects of in-person interventions aimed at mitigating social isolation and/or loneliness across all age groups and settings.Search MethodsThe following databases were searched from inception up to 17 February 2022 with no language restrictions: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, EBM Reviews—Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, APA PsycInfo via Ovid, CINAHL via EBSCO, EBSCO (all databases except CINAHL), Global Index Medicus, ProQuest (all databases), ProQuest ERIC, Web of Science, Korean Citation Index, Russian Science Citation Index, and SciELO Citation Index via Clarivate, and Elsevier Scopus.Selection CriteriaTitles, abstracts, and full texts of potentially eligible articles identified were screened independently by two reviewers for inclusion following the outlined eligibility criteria.Data Collection and AnalysisWe developed and pilot tested a data extraction code set in Eppi-Reviewer. Data was individually extracted and coded. We used the AMSTAR2 tool to assess the quality of reviews. However, the quality of the primary studies was not assessed.Main ResultsA total of 513 articles (421 primary studies and 92 systematic reviews) were included in this evidence and gap map which assessed the effectiveness of in-person interventions to reduce social isolation and loneliness. Most (68%) of the reviews were classified as critically low quality, while less than 5% were classified as high or moderate quality. Most reviews looked at interpersonal delivery and community-based delivery interventions, especially interventions for changing cognition led by a health professional and group activities, respectively. Loneliness, wellbeing, and depression/anxiety were the most assessed outcomes. Most research was conducted in high-income countries, concentrated in the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia, with none from low-income countries. Major gaps were identified in societal level and community-based delivery interventions that address policies and community structures, respectively. Less than 5% of included reviews assessed process indicators or implementation outcomes. Similar patterns of evidence and gaps were found in primary studies. All age groups were represented but more reviews and primary studies focused on older adults (≥60 years, 63%) compared to young people (≤24 years, 34%). Two thirds described how at-risk populations were identified and even fewer assessed differences in effect across equity factors for populations experiencing inequities

Sociodemographic data collection for health equity measurement: a mixed methods study examining public opinions

Abstract Monitoring inequalities in healthcare is increasingly being recognized as a key first step in providing equitable access to quality care. However, the detailed sociodemographic data that are necessary for monitoring are currently not routinely collected from patients in many jurisdictions. We undertook a mixed methods study to generate a more in-depth understanding of public opinion on the collection of patient sociodemographic information in healthcare settings for equity monitoring purposes in Ontario, Canada. The study included a provincial survey of 1,306 Ontarians, and in-depth interviews with a sample of 34 individuals. Forty percent of survey participants disagreed that it was important for information to be collected in healthcare settings for equity monitoring. While there was a high level of support for the collection of language, a relatively large proportion of survey participants felt uncomfortable disclosing household income (67%), sexual orientation (40%) and educational background (38%). Variation in perceived importance and comfort with the collection of various types of information was observed among different survey participant subgroups. Many in-depth interview participants were also unsure of the importance of the collection of sociodemographic information in healthcare settings and expressed concerns related to potential discrimination and misuse of this information. Study findings highlight that there is considerable concern regarding disclosure of such information in healthcare settings among Ontarians and a lack of awareness of its purpose that may impede future collection of such information. These issues point to the need for increased education for the public on the purpose of sociodemographic data collection as a strategy to address this problem, and the use of data collection strategies that reduce discomfort with disclosure in healthcare settings

Understanding collaborative implementation between community and academic partners in a complex intervention: a qualitative descriptive study

Abstract Background Community-academic partnerships (CAPs) can improve the relevance, sustainability, and uptake of new innovations within the community. However, little is known about what topics CAPs focus on and how their discussions and decisions impact implementation at ground level. The objectives of this study were to better understand the activities and learnings from implementation of a complex health intervention by a CAP at the planner/decision-maker level, and how that compared to experiences implementing the program at local sites. Methods The intervention, Health TAPESTRY, was implemented by a nine-partner CAP including academic, charitable organizations, and primary care practices. Meeting minutes were analyzed using qualitative description, latent content analysis, and a member check with key implementors. An open-answer survey about the best and worst elements of the program was completed by clients and health care providers and analyzed using thematic analysis. Results In total, 128 meeting minutes were analyzed, 278 providers and clients completed the survey, and six people participated in the member check. Prominent topics of discussion categories from the meeting minutes were: primary care sites, volunteer coordination, volunteer experience, internal and external connections, and sustainability and scalability. Clients liked that they learned new things and gained awareness of community programs, but did not like the volunteer visit length. Clinicians liked the regular interprofessional team meetings but found the program time-consuming. Conclusions An important learning was about who had “voice” at the planner/decision-maker level: many of the topics discussed in meeting minutes were not identified as issues or lasting impacts by clients or providers; this may be due to differing roles and needs, but may also identify a gap. Overall, we identified three phases that could serve as a guide for other CAPs: Phase (1) recruitment, financial support, and data ownership; Phase (2) considerations for modifications and adaptations; Phase (3) active input and reflection