暂无摘要。

Background: Provider uncertainty about the appropriate guideline-concordant evaluation of endometrial cancer (EC) symptoms may be a factor in racial inequities in EC. To evaluate the relationship between EC knowledge and reported practice patterns in a nationally representative survey of first-line providers for initial EC symptoms. Materials and Methods: This was a mailed cross-sectional survey of physicians and nurse practitioners from professional organization roster of providers from Obstetrics and Gynecology (OBGYN), Family Medicine, Internal Medicine, and Emergency Medicine. It queried demographics, practice characteristics, EC knowledge, and guideline-concordant practice patterns via three case vignettes. Regions of low response were retargeted to ensure strong representation among providers caring for Black women patients. EC knowledge was analyzed via a composite score (range: -3 to 10, with higher scores representing more EC knowledge), and adjusted prevalence ratios (PRs) used to test the association between knowledge and reported practice patterns. Results: Among 531 returned surveys (response rate = 38%), OBGYN had highest (53%) frequency of >6 (median) EC knowledge score, and Emergency Medicine had the lowest (15%) (p < 0.001). Nonguideline-concordant practice patterns were reported in 14%, 41%, and 35% of the three EC cases presented. Providers with knowledge >6, (n = 205) were significantly more likely to report guideline-concordant care on case vignettes (PR 1.28-1.36). Conclusions: In a national survey of multi-specialty backgrounds, there were basic knowledge gaps about EC and EC risk factors among providers, and a sizeable proportion reported nonguideline concordant practices. These findings indicate the importance of targeted education and training for first-line providers, as EC incidence rises.

暂无摘要。

Addressing persistent and pervasive health inequities is a global moral imperative, which has been highlighted and magnified by the societal and health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Observational studies can aid our understanding of the impact of health and structural oppression based on the intersection of gender, race, ethnicity, age and other factors, as they frequently collect this data. However, the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline, does not provide guidance related to reporting of health equity. The goal of this project is to develop a STROBE-Equity reporting guideline extension.
We assembled a diverse team across multiple domains, including gender, age, ethnicity, Indigenous background, disciplines, geographies, lived experience of health inequity and decision-making organizations. Using an inclusive, integrated knowledge translation approach, we will implement a five-phase plan which will include: (1) assessing the reporting of health equity in published observational studies, (2) seeking wide international feedback on items to improve reporting of health equity, (3) establishing consensus amongst knowledge users and researchers, (4) evaluating in partnership with Indigenous contributors the relevance to Indigenous peoples who have globally experienced the oppressive legacy of colonization, and (5) widely disseminating and seeking endorsement from relevant knowledge users. We will seek input from external collaborators using social media, mailing lists and other communication channels.
Achieving global imperatives such as the Sustainable Development Goals (e.g., SDG 10 Reduced inequalities, SDG 3 Good health and wellbeing) requires advancing health equity in research. The implementation of the STROBE-Equity guidelines will enable a better awareness and understanding of health inequities through better reporting. We will broadly disseminate the reporting guideline with tools to enable adoption and use by journal editors, authors, and funding agencies, using diverse strategies tailored to specific audiences.

Conducting participatory research (PR) aimed at improving health implies considering inequitable power relations, including those related to sex/gender (S/G). This necessitates specific skills and methods and may be challenging especially since guidelines are scarce. Our objective was to perform a scoping review to provide a typology of existing guidelines for researchers on how to take account of S/G in the context of PR in public health, with a focus on occupational and environmental health.
All steps of the research were conducted with the collaboration of an advisory committee, following PR principles. Nineteen documents were retained from 513 references identified in nine scientific databases and grey literature between 2000 and 2020. Data on recommendations were extracted and coded qualitatively. Cluster analysis based on similarities in recommendations proposed in the documents identified four types: (1) empowerment-centered; (2) concrete action-centered; (3) macrosystem-centered; and (4) stakeholder-centered.
Many sources gave pointers on how to include S/G during data collection and analysis or during the dissemination of findings, but there was a dearth of suggestions for building partnerships with stakeholders and producing sustainable S/G sociopolitical transformations. Occupational health PR showed less similarities with other public health subfields including environmental health PR. Power relationships with workplace stakeholders generated specific obstacles related to S/G integration that require further attention. Intersectionality and reflexive practices emerged as overarching themes.
This review provides helpful guidelines to researchers at different stages of planning PR, ranging from familiarizing themselves with S/G approaches to anticipating difficulties in their ongoing S/G-transformative PR.
RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Les recherches participatives (RP) visant l’amélioration de la santé doivent tenir compte de rapports de pouvoir inéquitables, incluant ceux liés au sexe/genre (S/G). Cela peut s’avérer difficile vu les compétences requises et la rareté de recommandations. Notre objectif consistait à réaliser une revue de portée menant à une typologie des recommandations existantes pour les chercheurs.euses sur l’intégration du S/G en contexte de RP en santé publique, particulièrement en santé environnementale ou au travail. MéTHODOLOGIE: Un comité d’encadrement a participé à chaque étape de l’étude. Nous avons retenu 19 documents parmi 513 références identifiées dans neuf bases de données scientifiques et la littérature grise (2000–2020). L’extraction et le codage qualitatif des recommandations a mené à une analyse de clusters basée sur les similitudes identifiant quatre types centrés sur : 1) pouvoir d’agir; 2) actions concrètes; 3) macro-système; et 4) parties prenantes. SYNTHèSE: Plusieurs sources indiquaient comment intégrer le S/G pendant la collecte/analyse des données ou la diffusion des résultats. Peu de recommandations touchaient l’aspect S/G au niveau des partenariats avec des parties prenantes ou des transformations sociopolitiques durables. Les recommandations en santé au travail étaient moins similaires aux autres sous-domaines de santé publique. Les relations de pouvoir en milieu de travail engendrent des obstacles spécifiques liés à l’intégration du S/G et nécessitent une attention particulière. L’intersectionnalité et les pratiques réflexives sont apparues comme des thèmes primordiaux. CONCLUSION: Les recommandations repérées aideront des chercheurs.euses à différents stades de leur parcours d’intégration du S/G dans une RP en cours, allant de la familiarisation à l’anticipation de difficultés.

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the global imperative to address health inequities. Observational studies are a valuable source of evidence for real-world effects and impacts of implementing COVID-19 policies on the redistribution of inequities. We assembled a diverse global multi-disciplinary team to develop interim guidance for improving transparency in reporting health equity in COVID-19 observational studies. We identified 14 areas in the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) checklist that need additional detail to encourage transparent reporting of health equity. We searched for examples of COVID-19 observational studies that analysed and reported health equity analysis across one or more social determinants of health. We engaged with Indigenous stakeholders and others groups experiencing health inequities to co-produce this guidance and to bring an intersectional lens. Taking health equity and social determinants of health into account contributes to the clinical and epidemiological understanding of the disease, identifying specific needs and supporting decision-making processes. Stakeholders are encouraged to consider using this guidance on observational research to help provide evidence to close the inequitable gaps in health outcomes.