The purpose of this article is to build upon prior work in social media research and ethics by highlighting an important and as yet underdeveloped research consideration: how should we consider vulnerability when conducting public health research in the social media environment? The use of social media in public health, both platforms and their data, has advanced the field dramatically over the past 2 decades. Applied public health research in the social media space has led to more robust surveillance tools and analytic strategies, more targeted recruitment activities, and more tailored health education. Ethical guidelines when using social media for public health research must also expand alongside these increasing capabilities and uses. Privacy, consent, and confidentiality have been hallmarks for ethical frameworks both in public health and social media research. To date, public health ethics scholarship has focused largely on practical guidelines and considerations for writing and reviewing social media research protocols. Such ethical guidelines have included collecting public data, reporting anonymized or aggregate results, and obtaining informed consent virtually. Our pursuit of the question related to vulnerability and public health research in the social media environment extends this foundational work in ethical guidelines and seeks to advance research in this field and to provide a solid ethical footing on which future research can thrive.

OBJECTIVE: Incorporating health equity considerations into guideline development often requires information beyond that gathered through traditional evidence synthesis methodology. This article outlines an operationalization plan for the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE)-equity criterion to gather and assess evidence from primary studies within systematic reviews, enhancing guideline recommendations to promote equity. We demonstrate its use in a clinical guideline on medical cannabis for chronic pain.
METHODS: We reviewed GRADE guidance and resources recommended by team members regarding the use of evidence for equity considerations, drafted an operationalization plan, and iteratively refined it through team discussion and feedback and piloted it on a medicinal cannabis guideline.
RESULTS: We propose a seven-step approach: 1) identify disadvantaged populations, 2) examine available data for specific populations, 3) evaluate population baseline risk for primary outcomes, 4) assess representation of these populations in primary studies, 5) appraise analyses, 6) note barriers to implementation of effective interventions for these populations, and 7) suggest supportive strategies to facilitate implementation of effective interventions.
CONCLUSIONS: Our approach assists guideline developers in recognizing equity considerations, particularly in resource-constrained settings. Its application across various guideline topics can verify its feasibility and necessary adjustments.

Refugees and asylum seekers may experience challenges related to pre-arrival experiences, structural disadvantage after migration and during resettlement requiring the need for special protection when participating in research. The aim was to review if and how people with refugee and asylum seeker backgrounds have had their need for special protection addressed in national and international research ethics guidelines. A systematic search of grey literature was undertaken. The search yielded 2187 documents of which fourteen met the inclusion criteria. Few guidelines addressed specific ethical considerations for vulnerable groups much less people with refugee and asylum seeker backgrounds. One guideline explicitly addressed vulnerability for refugees and asylums seekers. To ensure members of ethics committees and researchers consider the potential challenges of conducting research with these groups, guidelines may need to be supplemented with a refugee and asylum seeker specific research ethics framework. Such a framework may be necessary to optimally protect people with refugee and asylum seeker backgrounds in research.

暂无摘要。

The application of structural competency and structural vulnerability to emergency medicine (EM) research has not been previously described despite EM researchers routinely engaging structurally vulnerable populations. The purpose of this study was to conduct a scoping review and consensus-building process to develop a structurally competent research approach and operational framework relevant to EM research.
We conducted a scoping review focused on structural competency and structural vulnerability. Results of the review informed the development of a structural competency research framework that was presented throughout a multi-step consensus process culminating in the 2021 Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference. Feedback to the framework was incorporated throughout the conference.
The scoping review produced 291 articles with 123 articles relevant to EM research. All 123 articles underwent full-text review and data extraction following a standardized data extraction form. Most of the articles acknowledged or described structures that lead to inequities with a variety of methodological approaches used to operationalize structural competency and/or structural vulnerability. The framework developed aligned with components of the research process, drawing upon methodologies from studies included in the scoping review.
The framework developed provides a starting point for EM researchers seeking to understand, acknowledge, and incorporate structural competency into EM research. By incorporating components of the framework, researchers may enhance their ability to address social, historical, political, and economic forces that lead to health inequities, reframing drivers of inequities away from individual factors and focusing on structural factors.

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.

The COVID-19 pandemic has uncovered the ways in which disabled people are made more vulnerable due to structural inequalities. These vulnerabilities are the result of the interaction between individual and structural factors that shape how risk is experienced by disabled people. In Australia, these vulnerabilities are influenced by the way disability services and care for disabled people are delivered through a consumer-directed approach. We analysed the policies and documentation made by the Australian Government and state and territory governments during the pandemic to explore whether these were disability-inclusive. We aimed to unpack how these policies shaped disabled people as vulnerable citizens.
Guided by documentary research, we used framework analysis to examine the policies of the Australian Government and state and territory governments. We analysed legislation that was given royal assent by the federal, state and territory governments, and documents (reports, fact sheets, guidance documents, etc.) published by the federal government and the state of Victoria (given that this state experienced the brunt of the epidemic in Australia) between February 2020 to August of 2020.
We found that most of the resources were not aimed at disabled people, but at carers and workers within disability services. In addition, most policies formulated by the Australian Government were related to the expansion of welfare services and the creation of economic stimulus schemes. However, while the stimulus included unemployed people, the expansion of benefits explicitly excluded disabled people who were not employed. Most of the legislation and documents offered accessibility options, though most of these options were only available in English. Disability oriented agencies offered more extensive accessibility options.
The findings indicate a large number of documents addressing the needs of disabled people. However, disability-inclusiveness appeared to be inconsistent and not fully considered, leaving disabled people exposed to greater risk of COVID-19. Neoliberal policies in the health and welfare sector in Australia have led to an individualisation of the responsibility to remain healthy and a reliance on people as independent consumers. Governments need to take a clear stance towards the emergence of such a discourse that actively disvalues disabled people.

Clinical practice guidelines can improve the clinical and social care for marginalized populations, thereby improving health equity. The aim of this study is to identify determinants of guideline implementation from the perspective of patients and practitioner stakeholders for a homeless health guideline. We completed a mixed-method study to identify determinants of equitable implementation of homeless health guidelines, focusing on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Feasibility, Acceptability, Cost, and Equity Survey (GRADE-FACE) health equity implementation outcomes. The study included a survey and framework analysis. Eighty-eight stakeholders, including practitioners and 16 persons with lived experience of homelessness, participated in the study. Most participants favourably rated the drafted recommendations\' priority status, feasibility, acceptability, cost, equity impact, and intent-to-implement. Qualitative analysis uncovered stakeholder concerns and perceptions regarding \"fragmented services\". Practitioners were reluctant to care for persons with lived experience of homelessness, suggesting that associated social stigma serves as a barrier for this population to access healthcare. Participants called for improved \"training of practitioners\" to increase knowledge of patient needs and preferences. We identified several knowledge translation strategies that may improve implementation of guidelines for marginalized populations. Such strategies should be considered by other guideline development groups who aim to improve health outcomes in the context of limited and fragmented resources, stigma, and need for advocacy.

To evaluate how and to what extent health equity considerations are assessed in World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines.
We evaluated WHO guidelines published between January 2014 and May 2019. Health equity considerations were assessed in relation to differences in baseline risk, importance of outcomes for socially disadvantaged populations, inclusion of health inequity as an outcome, equity-related subgroup analysis, and indirectness in each recommendation.
We identified 111 WHO guidelines, and 54% (60 of 111) of these used the Evidence to Decision (EtD) framework. For the 60 guidelines using an EtD framework, the likely impact on health equity was supported by research evidence in 28% of the recommendations (94 of 332). Research evidence was mostly provided as differences in baseline risk (23%, 78/332). Research evidence less frequently addressed the importance of outcomes for socially disadvantaged populations (11%, 36/332), considered indirectness of the evidence for socially disadvantaged populations (2%, 5/332), considered health inequities as an outcome (2%, 5/332) and considered differences in the magnitude of effect in relative terms between disadvantaged and more advantaged populations (1%, 3/332).
The provision of research evidence to support equity judgements in WHO guidelines is still suboptimal, suggesting the need for better guidance and more training.

The COVID-19 pandemic is revealing the unacceptable health disparities across New York City and in this country. The mortality rates of vulnerable and minority populations alone suggest a need to re-evaluate clinical decision making protocols, especially given the recently passed Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act, which grants healthcare institutions full immunity from liability stemming from resource allocation/triage decisions. Here we examine the disparity literature against resource allocation guidelines, contending that these guidelines may propagate allocation of resources along ableist, ageist and racial biases. Finally, we make the claim that the state must successfully develop ones that ensure the just treatment of our most vulnerable.