BACKGROUND: Addressing socioeconomic inequalities in health and healthcare, and reducing avoidable hospital admissions requires integrated strategy and complex intervention across health systems. However, the understanding of how to create effective systems to reduce socio-economic inequalities in health and healthcare is limited. The aim was to explore and develop a system\'s level understanding of how local areas address health inequalities with a focus on avoidable emergency admissions.
METHODS: In-depth case study using qualitative investigation (documentary analysis and key informant interviews) in an urban UK local authority. Interviewees were identified using snowball sampling. Documents were retrieved via key informants and web searches of relevant organisations. Interviews and documents were analysed independently based on a thematic analysis approach.
RESULTS: Interviews (n = 14) with wide representation from local authority (n = 8), NHS (n = 5) and voluntary, community and social enterprise (VCSE) sector (n = 1) with 75 documents (including from NHS, local authority, VCSE) were included. Cross-referenced themes were understanding the local context, facilitators of how to tackle health inequalities: the assets, and emerging risks and concerns. Addressing health inequalities in avoidable admissions per se was not often explicitly linked by either the interviews or documents and is not yet embedded into practice. However, a strong coherent strategic integrated population health management plan with a system\'s approach to reducing health inequalities was evident as was collective action and involving people, with links to a \"strong third sector\". Challenges reported include structural barriers and threats, the analysis and accessibility of data as well as ongoing pressures on the health and care system.
CONCLUSIONS: We provide an in-depth exploration of how a local area is working to address health and care inequalities. Key elements of this system\'s working include fostering strategic coherence, cross-agency working, and community-asset based approaches. Areas requiring action included data sharing challenges across organisations and analytical capacity to assist endeavours to reduce health and care inequalities. Other areas were around the resilience of the system including the recruitment and retention of the workforce. More action is required to embed reducing health inequalities in avoidable admissions explicitly in local areas with inaction risking widening the health gap.

暂无摘要。

Monkeypox has been endemic in Congo and Nigeria for at least five decades. Since early May 2022, there have been numerous unprecedented outbreaks throughout the world in places without any previously reported cases. While a majority of the diagnosed cases have been within Europe and the Americas, several cases have occurred in non-endemic African countries. As of December 2022, 82,999 cases had been reported globally, prompting concern among the World Health Organization (WHO) members. While the WHO has not labeled this epidemic a Global Health Emergency, member states have begun to put forward plans to consolidate their emergency vaccine stockpiles and share the limited number of vaccines made by the single FDA-approved manufacturer, Bavarian Nordic. Many countries are concerned about how vaccines will be shared. Some of the larger donor States are positioned to be the biggest beneficiaries of vaccine sharing, while States from areas that have been suffering from the virus since the 1970s have not been allocated any. This pattern of vaccine distribution echoes that seen during the early part of the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to the similarities between Monkeypox and Smallpox, contact precautions and vaccination seem to be effective strategies to combat its rapid spread. We aim to evaluate how an eradication program model similar to that used for Smallpox can be applied to Monkeypox, and whether it can address vaccine inequity. To do this, we use a multi-pronged approach targeting disease surveillance, vaccine awareness, manufacturing, cost, and distribution strategies.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

With recent advances in understanding racial, socioeconomic, and mental health issues in medicine and their relation to policy and legislation, medical professionals are increasingly involved in local and national advocacy efforts. At the frontlines of these initiatives are medical students who, in addition to completing required coursework and clinical training, devote themselves to serving patients through civic participation. The burgeoning evidence concerning health care disparities and inequity, along with greater awareness of racial and socioeconomic discrimination, have made advocacy an essential aspect of many students\' medical training. Every year, thousands of medical students join national medical advocacy organizations, in addition to regional, state, and local groups. Despite the rich history of medical student involvement in advocacy, there remains much speculation and skepticism about the practice as an essential component of the medical profession. From early initiatives pushing for national health insurance after World War II to encouraging antidiscrimination policies and practices, medical students have been collectively working to create change for themselves and their patients. Through efforts such as banning smoking on airplanes, creating safe syringe programs, and protesting against police brutality, many medical students work tirelessly in advocacy despite minimal educational support or guidance about the advocacy process. Given that medical student advocacy continues to grow and has shown measurable successes in the past, the authors believe that these efforts should be rewarded and expanded upon. The authors examine historical examples of medical student advocacy to suggest ways in which advocacy can be integrated into core medical school curricula and activities. They call attention to opportunities to support students\' development of knowledge and skills to facilitate legislative change, expansion of interprofessional collaborations and credit, and curricular updates to promote social and health equity.

暂无摘要。

Traditional on-site missions of plastic surgeons from \"high-income countries\" in \"low- and middle-income countries\" are often limited in time and lack proper follow-up. Regular digital collaboration could lead to a more impactful and durable exchange of knowledge for plastic surgeons and residents in both settings.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the satisfaction of the first twelve months of weekly digital meetings, explore advantages/disadvantages, and to provide tools for similar initiatives.
Weekly meetings started from August 2021. An encrypted digital connection allowed residents and plastic surgeons from Uganda and the Netherlands to discuss cases for educational purposes, where treatment options were considered. After twelve months, a survey was sent to participants from both countries to indicate the meetings\' strengths, weaknesses, and possible improvements.
A total of 18 participants responded to the questionnaire (ten plastic surgeons, six residents, and two researchers). The strengths of the meetings were the accessibility of the meetings, knowledge exchange and practice for residents\' final exams. Possible improvements included having a clear format for patient discussion, a session moderator and better internet connectivity. Moreover, a database to assess the impact of the given intervention on the patient cases by evaluating postoperatively (e.g. three months), could further improve clinical care.
Virtual patient discussions subjectively contributed to medical education at both locations. Improved digital infrastructure and a collaborative database could further maximize learning capacity. Furthermore, digital proctoring is a promising way to establish sustainable collaborations between high- and low-resource countries.

A major hurdle for the real time deployment of the AI models is ensuring trustworthiness of these models for the unseen population. More often than not, these complex models are black boxes in which promising results are generated. However, when scrutinized, these models begin to reveal implicit biases during the decision making, particularly for the minority subgroups.
We develop an efficient adversarial de-biasing approach with partial learning by incorporating the existing concept activation vectors (CAV) methodology, to reduce racial disparities while preserving the performance of the targeted task. CAV is originally a model interpretability technique which we adopted to identify convolution layers responsible for learning race and only fine-tune up to that layer instead of fine-tuning the complete network, limiting the drop in performance RESULTS:: The methodology has been evaluated on two independent medical image case-studies - chest X-ray and mammograms, and we also performed external validation on a different racial population. On the external datasets for the chest X-ray use-case, debiased models (averaged AUC 0.87 ) outperformed the baseline convolution models (averaged AUC 0.57 ) as well as the models trained with the popular fine-tuning strategy (averaged AUC 0.81). Moreover, the mammogram models is debiased using a single dataset (white, black and Asian) and improved the performance on an external datasets (averaged AUC 0.8 to 0.86 ) with completely different population (primarily Hispanic patients).
In this study, we demonstrated that the adversarial models trained only with internal data performed equally or often outperformed the standard fine-tuning strategy with data from an external setting. The adversarial training approach described can be applied regardless of predictor\'s model architecture, as long as the convolution model is trained using a gradient-based method. We release the training code with academic open-source license - https://github.com/ramon349/JBI2023_TCAV_debiasing.

Originally designed as a forum to discuss adverse patient events, Surgery Morbidity & Mortality Conference (M&M) has evolved into an integral tool within surgical education where trainees at all levels are taught to critically examine decision-making. Others have expanded the scope of subsets of M&M conferences to include additional factors that influence patient outcomes, such as social determinants of health, implicit bias and structural policies that contribute to health disparities. In this study, we implemented a disparities-based discussion into our surgical department\'s weekly M&M conference and examined the effect(s) on participants\' understanding and perceptions of key disparities in access to surgical care.
An anonymous electronic survey was sent to attendees of the Department of Surgery\'s M&M conference including faculty, residents and medical students prior to implementation of the intervention. The survey queried perceptions of the presence and impact of disparities in access to surgical care and how these are addressed at the study institution. The standard presenter slide template was updated to include a \"Disparities Factors\" section within the \"Reasons for Complication\" slide. After over 1 year, a postintervention survey was sent to conference attendees that included the same questions as the initial survey, as well as new questions related to the intervention. Descriptive statistics were performed on survey results, and comparisons were made for paired pre-post items.
Eighty conference attendees completed the pre-intervention survey, and 70 completed the postintervention survey (22 [27.5%]; 22 [31.4%] attendings, 24 [30.0%]; 21 [30.0%] residents, 34 [42.5%]; 27 [38.6%] medical students respectively). Socioeconomics and language were most commonly identified both pre- and postintervention as the most important factors contributing to disparities in care experienced by patients at the study institution. Respondents agreed disparities in access significantly impact surgical care, and there was an increase in the number of respondents who reported feeling that disparities are being addressed postintervention. A total of 69% (n = 48) of respondents thought that integrating discussion of disparities in access to surgical care into M&M improved their understanding of the role these disparities play, 66% (n = 46) felt that their own thinking or practice changed regarding patient disparities, 84% (n = 59) reported integrating these discussions of disparities into M&M has been helpful overall.
The inclusion of a disparities discussion in weekly M&M conference has led to positive change at the study institution, fostering a more comprehensive and socially conscious dialogue within the Department of Surgery. Survey respondents agreed that disparities exist in access to surgical care, and that the intervention improved their perceptions of how the study institution addresses disparities. Respondents felt that the integration of a disparities discussion was overall helpful, improved their knowledge of disparities in access to surgical care, and impacted their plans to address disparities in their own practices.