FreshRSS

🔒
❌ Acerca de FreshRSS
Hay nuevos artículos disponibles. Pincha para refrescar la página.
AnteayerTus fuentes RSS

Understanding responsibility for health inequalities in childrens hospitals in England: a qualitative study with hospital staff

Por: Brewster · L. · Brennan · L. · Hindocha · A. · Lunn · J. · Isba · R.
Objectives

This study aimed to understand how staff in children’s hospitals view their responsibility to reduce health inequalities for the children and young people who access their services.

Design

We conducted an exploratory qualitative study.

Setting

The study took place at nine children’s hospitals in England.

Participants

217 members of staff contributed via interviews and focus groups conducted January–June 2023. Staff were represented at all levels of the organisations, and all staff who volunteered to contribute were included in the study.

Analysis

Data were analysed using Rapid Research Evaluation and Appraisal (RREAL) methodology for rapid assessment procedures (RAP).

Results

All of the children’s hospitals were taking some action to reduce health inequalities. Two key themes were identified. First, it was clear that reducing health inequalities was seen as something that was of vital import and should be part of staff’s day-to-day activity, framed as ‘everyone’s business.’ Many staff felt that there was an obligation to intervene to ensure that children and young people receiving hospital treatment were not further disadvantaged by, for example, food poverty. Second, however, the deeply entrenched and intersectional nature of health inequalities sometimes meant that these inequalities were complex to tackle, with no clear impetus to specific actions, and could be framed as ‘no-one’s responsibility’. Within a complex health and social care system, there were many potential actors who could take responsibility for reducing health inequalities, and staff often questioned whether it was the role of a children’s hospital to lead these initiatives.

Conclusions

Broadly speaking, senior leaders were clear about their organisational role in reducing health inequalities where they impacted on access and quality of care, but there was some uncertainty about the perceived boundaries of responsibility. This led to fragility in the sustainability of activity, and a lack of joined-up intervention. Most hospitals were forging ahead with activity, considering that it was more important to work to overcome health inequalities rather than debate whose job it was.

What health inequalities exist in access to, outcomes from and experience of treatment for lung cancer? A scoping review

Por: Lennox · L. · Lambe · K. · Hindocha · C. N. · Coronini-Cronberg · S.
Objectives

Lung cancer (LC) continues to be the leading cause of cancer-related deaths and while there have been significant improvements in overall survival, this gain is not equally distributed. To address health inequalities (HIs), it is vital to identify whether and where they exist. This paper reviews existing literature on what HIs impact LC care and where these manifest on the care pathway.

Design

A systematic scoping review based on Arksey and O’Malley’s five-stage framework.

Data sources

Multiple databases (EMBASE, HMIC, Medline, PsycINFO, PubMed) were used to retrieve articles.

Eligibility criteria

Search limits were set to retrieve articles published between January 2012 and April 2022. Papers examining LC along with domains of HI were included. Two authors screened papers and independently assessed full texts.

Data extraction and synthesis

HIs were categorised according to: (a) HI domains: Protected Characteristics (PC); Socioeconomic and Deprivation Factors (SDF); Geographical Region (GR); Vulnerable or Socially Excluded Groups (VSG); and (b) where on the LC pathway (access to, outcomes from, experience of care) inequalities manifest. Data were extracted by two authors and collated in a spreadsheet for structured analysis and interpretation.

Results

41 papers were included. The most studied domain was PC (32/41), followed by SDF (19/41), GR (18/41) and VSG (13/41). Most studies investigated differences in access (31/41) or outcomes (27/41), with few (4/41) exploring experience inequalities. Evidence showed race, rural residence and being part of a VSG impacted the access to LC diagnosis, treatment and supportive care. Additionally, rural residence, older age or male sex negatively impacted survival and mortality. The relationship between outcomes and other factors (eg, race, deprivation) showed mixed results.

Conclusions

Findings offer an opportunity to reflect on the understanding of HIs in LC care and provide a platform to consider targeted efforts to improve equity of access, outcomes and experience for patients.

❌