BACKGROUND: Preterm birth (PTB) is the main condition related to perinatal morbimortality worldwide. The aim of this study was to determine the indirect effects of neighbourhood socioeconomic status (NSES) on the risk of spontaneous PTB.
METHODS: We carried out a retrospective case-control study including sociodemographic and obstetric data of multigravid women who gave birth at a maternity hospital in Tucumán, Argentina, between 2005 and 2010: 949 women without previous PTB nor pregnancy loss who delivered at term and 552 who had spontaneous PTB. NSES was estimated from the Unsatisfied Basic Needs index of census data. Variables selected through penalised regressions were used to create a data-driven Bayesian network; then, pathways were identified and mediation analyses performed.
RESULTS: Maternal age less than 20 years mediated part of the protective effect of high NSES on spontaneous PTB [natural indirect effect (NIE) -0.0125, 95% confidence interval (CI) (-0.0208, -0.0041)] and on few prenatal visits (< 5) [NIE - 0.0095, 95% CI (-0.0166, -0.0025)]. These pathways showed greater sensitivity to unobserved confounders that affect the variables mediator-outcome in the same direction, and exposure-mediator in the opposite direction. They did not show sensitivity to observed potential confounders, nor to the parameterization used to define NSES. Meanwhile, urinary tract infections showed a trend in mediating the effect of low NSES on spontaneous PTB [NIE 0.0044, 95% CI (-0.0006, 0.0093), P 0.0834].
CONCLUSIONS: High NSES has protective indirect effects on spontaneous PTB risk, mainly associated with a lower frequency of teenage pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Expanding primary care multi-disciplinary teams (MDTs) was a key component of the 2018 Scottish GP contract, with over 4,700 MDT staff appointed since then.
OBJECTIVE: To explore patients\' views on primary care MDT expansion in Scotland.
METHODS: (1) Survey of patients recently consulting a GP in deprived-urban, affluent-urban and remote/rural areas, assessing awareness of five MDT roles and attitudes towards receptionist signposting; (2) 30 individual interviews exploring MDT-care experiences.
RESULTS: Of 1,053 survey respondents, most were unaware of the option of MDT rather than GP consultations for three out of five roles (69% unaware of link worker appointments; 68% mental health nurse; 58% pharmacist). Reception signposting was less popular in deprived-urban areas (34% unhappy vs 29% in remote/rural vs 21% affluent-urban; P<0.001), and in patients with multimorbidity (31% unhappy vs 24% in non-multimorbid; P<0.05).Two-thirds of interviewees had multimorbidity and almost all reported positive MDT-care experiences. However, MDT-care was generally seen as a supplement rather than a substitute for GP care. Around half of patients expressed concerns about reception signposting. These patients were more likely to also express concerns about GP access in general. Both of these concerns were more common in deprived-urban areas than in remote/rural or affluent-urban areas.
CONCLUSIONS: MDT-care has expanded in Scotland with limited patient awareness. Although patients understand its potential value, many patients are unhappy with reception signposting to first-contact MDT care, especially those in deprived-urban areas living with multimorbidity. This represents a barrier to the aims of the new GP contract.

UNASSIGNED: Socio-economic inequalities in health have been in the public agenda for decades. General practice has an influential role to play in mitigating the impact of inequalities especially regarding chronic conditions. At the moment, general practice is dealing with serious challenges in relation to workforce shortages, increasing workload and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is important to identify effective ways so that general practice can play its role in reducing health inequalities.
UNASSIGNED: We explored what types of interventions and aspects of routine care in general practice decrease or increase inequalities in health and care-related outcomes. We focused on cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. We explored for whom these interventions and aspects of care work best, why, and in what circumstances. Our main objective was to synthesise this evidence into specific guidance for healthcare professionals and decision-makers about how best to achieve equitable general practice.
UNASSIGNED: Realist review.
UNASSIGNED: Clinical or care-related outcomes by socio-economic group, or other PROGRESS-Plus criteria.
UNASSIGNED: Realist review based on Pawson\'s five steps: (1) locating existing theories, (2) searching for evidence, (3) selecting articles, (4) extracting and organising data and (5) synthesising the evidence.
UNASSIGNED: Three hundred and twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria and 159 of them were selected for the evidence synthesis. Evidence about the impact of general practice interventions on health inequalities is limited. To reduce health inequalities, general practice needs to be: • connected so that interventions are linked and coordinated across the sector; • intersectional to account for the fact that people\'s experience is affected by many of their characteristics; • flexible to meet patients\' different needs and preferences; • inclusive so that it does not exclude people because of who they are; • community-centred so that people who receive care engage with its design and delivery. These qualities should inform action across four domains: structures like funding and workforce distribution, organisational culture, everyday regulated procedures involved in care delivery, interpersonal and community relationships.
UNASSIGNED: The reviewed evidence offers limited detail about the ways and the extent to which specific interventions increase or decrease inequalities in general practice. Therefore, we focused on the underpinning principles that were common across interventions to produce higher-level, transferrable conclusions about ways to achieve equitable care.
UNASSIGNED: Inequalities in general practice result from complex processes across four different domains that include structures, ideas, regulated everyday procedures, and relationships among individuals and communities. To achieve equity, general practice needs to be connected, intersectional, flexible, inclusive and community-centred.
UNASSIGNED: Future work should focus on how these five essential qualities can be better used to shape the organisational development of future general practice.
UNASSIGNED: This trial is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020217871.
UNASSIGNED: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR130694) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 7. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.
Health inequalities are unfair differences in health across different groups of the population. In the United Kingdom, the health inequality gap in life expectancy between the richest and poorest is increasing and is caused mostly by differences in long-term conditions like cancer and cardiovascular disease and respiratory conditions, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Partly National Health Service inequalities arise in delays in seeing a doctor and care provided through doctors’ surgery, such as delays in getting tests. This study explored how general practice services can increase or decrease inequalities in cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, under what circumstances and for whom. It also produced guidance for general practice, both local general practices and the wider general practice system, to reduce inequalities. We reviewed existing studies using a realist methodology. This methodology helps us understand the different contexts in which interventions work or not. We found that inequalities in general practice result from complex processes across different areas. These include funding and workforce, perceptions about health and disease among patients and healthcare staff, everyday procedures involved in care delivery, and relationships among individuals and communities. To reduce inequalities in general practice, action should be taken in all these areas and services need to be connected (i.e. linked and coordinated across the sector), intersectional (i.e. accounting for the fact that people’s experience is affected by many of their characteristics like their gender and socio-economic position), flexible (i.e. meeting patients’ different needs and preferences), inclusive (i.e. not excluding people because of who they are) and community-centred (i.e. working with the people who will receive care when designing and providing it). There is no one single intervention that will make general practice more equitable, rather it requires long-term organisational change based on these principles.

This paper intervenes in the dichotomous debate on the \'privatisation\' of the UK\'s National Health Service (NHS). Whilst research suggests that involving private-sector actors and principles deviates from the founding aims of the NHS to deliver equitable healthcare for all, the opposing argument to \'keep our NHS public\' also limits understanding and alternative possibilities. Through focusing on maintaining overarching structures, these campaigns fail to address everyday medical practices that have long been critiqued by those allied with the sociology of health and illness. This paper draws on feminist critiques of public/private to expand the structural economic lens of mainstream political debates and explore how multiple forms of economic, social, cultural, and symbolic capital, operate in everyday healthcare practices. Through an historically-informed ethnographic exploration of routine hip replacements, I find that capital itself emerges through relations between people and things, and that public/private boundaries play an integral role in forming these relations to instil value on particular patients and forms of labour, demarcating what kind of healthcare is given to whom. I therefore suggest future action should focus on assembling healthcare relations beyond the dualism of public/private categories, to create multiple safe places and relations for all.

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: Health inequalities in the UK are widening, particularly since the COVID-19 pandemic. Community pharmacies are the most visited healthcare provider in England and are ideally placed to provide and facilitate access to care for those most disadvantaged.
OBJECTIVE: To explore the experiences and needs of community pharmacy teams in providing care for marginalised groups and how this has changed since the COVID-19 pandemic.
METHODS: A qualitative study in community pharmacy and across primary care.
METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with members of community pharmacy teams, primary care network (PCN) pharmacists, GPs, and nurses in the North of England.
RESULTS: In total, 31 individuals participated in an interview (26 pharmacy staff, three GPs, and two nurses). Most participants acknowledged that their pharmacy had become busier since COVID-19 because of increased footfall compounded by patient difficulties in navigating remote digital systems. Few participants had received any formal training on working with marginalised communities; however, organisational barriers (such as lack of access to translation facilities) combined with interorganisational barriers (such as lack of integrated care) made it more difficult to provide care for some marginalised groups. Despite this, the continuity of care provided by many pharmacies was viewed as an important factor in enabling marginalised groups to access and receive care.
CONCLUSIONS: There are opportunities to better utilise the skills of community pharmacy teams. Resources, such as access to translation services, and interventions to enable better communication between community pharmacy teams and other primary care services, such as general practice, are essential.

Studies have shown separately that sexual minority populations generally experience poorer chronic health outcomes compared with those who identify as heterosexual, as do rural populations compared with urban dwellers. This Canadian national observational study explored healthcare patterns at the little-understood intersections of lesbian, gay, or bisexual (LGB) identity with residence in rural and remote communities, beyond chronic disease status. The secondary analysis applied logistic regressions on multiple linked datasets from representative health surveys, administrative hospital records, and a geocoded index of community remoteness to examine differences in the risk of potentially avoidable cardiometabolic-related hospitalization among adults of working age. Among those with an underlying cardiometabolic condition and residing in more rural and remote communities, a significantly higher hospitalization risk was found for LGB-identified persons compared with their heterosexual peers (odds ratio: 4.2; 95% confidence interval: 1.5-11.7), adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics, behavioral risk factors, and primary healthcare access. In models stratified by sex, the association remained significant among gay and bisexual men (5.6; CI: 1.3-24.4) but not among lesbian and bisexual women (3.5; CI: 0.9-13.6). More research is needed leveraging linkable datasets to better understand the complex and multiplicative influences of sexual minority status and rurality on cardiometabolic health to inform equity-enhancing preventive healthcare interventions.

People who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT+) face inequalities in healthcare and are receiving less palliative and end-of-life care than others with a comparable need. Since the global resolution to improve palliative care made by the World Health Assembly, the World Health Organization, and member states, some progress has been made. However, LGBT+ people are discriminated and marginalized, which leads to suboptimal palliative care. Research on the needs of LGBT+ people and their access to palliative care is limited. Therefore, the aim of this discussion article is to scope unique problems around palliative and end-of-life care for LGBT+ people and identify possible solutions to address these problems with direct links to nursing practice.
Journal articles and author experience were used for this discussion article.
Oncology nurses need to be educated in communication skills, specific assessment tools, and awareness of the history of LGBT+ people. Increasing knowledge for cancer nurses is pivotal because this affects their views, needs, and perceptions in providing palliative and end-of-life care.
Oncology nurses have a pivotal role in caring for all cancer patients at the end of their life. LGBT+ patients and their caregivers need competent nurses to support them, especially during transitions. Implementing LGBT+-inclusive education, training, and practice will improve outcomes for LGBT cancer patients and their caregivers, and potentially all patients. More research is needed to implement such training in nursing education. (\"LGBT+\" has been used throughout the article. There are many arguments in favor of using different variations of the acronym, but for purposes of understanding and ease, LGBT+ is the acronym of choice here.).

OBJECTIVE: Ethnic inequities in heart failure (HF) have been documented in several countries. This study describes New Zealand (NZ) trends in incident HF hospitalisation by ethnicity between 2006 and 2018.
METHODS: Incident HF hospitalisations in ≥20-year-old subjects were identified through International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision-coded national hospitalisation records. Incidence was calculated for different ethnic, sex and age groups and were age standardised. Trends were estimated with joinpoint regression.
RESULTS: Of 116 113 incident HF hospitalisations, 12.8% were Māori, 5.7% Pacific people, 3.0% Asians and 78.6% Europeans/others. 64% of Māori and Pacific patients were aged <70 years, compared with 37% of Asian and 19% of European/others. In 2018, incidence rate ratios compared with European/others were 6.0 (95% CI 4.9 to 7.3), 7.5 (95% CI 6.0 to 9.4) and 0.5 (95% CI 0.3 to 0.8) for Māori, Pacific people and Asians aged 20-49 years; 3.7 (95% CI 3.4 to 4.0), 3.6 (95% CI 3.2 to 4.1) and 0.5 (95% CI 0.4 to 0.6) for Māori, Pacific people and Asians aged 50-69 years; and 1.5 (95% CI 1.4 to 1.6), 1.5 (95% CI 1.3 to 1.7) and 0.5 (95% CI 0.5 to 0.6) for Māori, Pacific people and Asians aged ≥70 years. Between 2006 and 2018, ethnicity-specific rates diverged in ≥70-year-old subjects due to a decline in European/others (annual percentage change (APC) -2.0%, 95% CI -2.5% to -1.6%) and Asians (APC -3.3%, 95% CI -4.4% to -2.1%), but rates remained unchanged for Māori and Pacific people. In contrast, regardless of ethnicity, rates either increased or remained unchanged in <70-year-old subjects.
CONCLUSIONS: Ethnic inequities in incident HF hospitalisation have widened in NZ over the past 13 years. Urgent action is required to address the predisposing factors that lead to development of HF in Maori and Pacific people.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of thispaper is to explore the experiences of parents and carers of children with chronic health conditions in accessing healthcare during the Covid-19 pandemic. Children with chronic conditions typically rely on both planned and unplanned care, and contact with healthcare professionals over extensive periods of time. Their distinct care needs render these children vulnerable to even to minor changes in healthcare provision. The wide-ranging care disruptions during the pandemic were therefore likely drastically to affect their health and wellbeing; an assessment of the effects of Covid-19 policies on healthcare access and quality of care delivered for this group is needed.
METHODS: From 25/01/2022 to 25/05/2022, four focus groups were held with parents/carers of children with diabetes, neurodivergence, mental health conditions, and medical complexities to explore their experiences in navigating the healthcare system during the pandemic. Interviews were transcribed and then subjected to thematic analysis using NVivo qualitative research software.
RESULTS: Our results indicate that children with chronic health conditions (and their parents/carers) experienced difficulties accessing healthcare during the pandemic. Problems with late diagnosis, prolonged waiting times, and deficiencies with telemedicine were identified, as were impacts of healthcare disruptions on children\'s wellbeing, and the wellbeing of wider families. We found that children with neurodivergence and those with mental health conditions were particularly affected with their health needs repeatedly de-prioritised. Furthermore, the loss of contact with multi-specialty clinical teams profoundly affected parents and carers, leaving them feeling isolated in managing their children\'s health. These diminished relationships became another vector for uncertainty in supporting children\'s health.
CONCLUSIONS: The effects of healthcare disruptions on the welfare of children with chronic conditions (and their families), are well evidenced in this work, providing deeper understandings of the relationships between these children, their families and clinicians. The evidence in this paper aims to inform future policy and ethical guidelines so that the needs of children with long-term health conditions can be properly considered in times of crisis.