Reducing health inequalities in priority public health conditions: using rapid review to develop proposals for evidence-based policy

被引:36
作者
Bambra, Clare [1 ]
Joyce, Kerry E. [1 ]
Bellis, Mark A. [2 ]
Greatley, Angela [3 ]
Greengross, Sally [4 ]
Hughes, Sara [2 ]
Lincoln, Paul [5 ]
Lobstein, Tim [6 ]
Naylor, Chris [7 ]
Salay, Rebecca [5 ]
Wiseman, Martin [8 ]
Maryon-Davis, Alan [9 ]
机构
[1] Univ Durham, Wolfson Res Inst, Stockton On Tees, England
[2] Liverpool John Moores Univ, Ctr Publ Hlth, Liverpool L3 5UX, Merseyside, England
[3] Sainsbury Ctr Mental Hlth, London, England
[4] Int Longev Ctr, London, England
[5] Natl Heart Forum, London, England
[6] Int Assoc Study Obes, London, England
[7] Kings Fund, London, England
[8] World Canc Res Fund Int, London, England
[9] Kings Coll London, London, England
关键词
public health; social determinants; CANCER; MORTALITY; ENGLAND;
D O I
10.1093/pubmed/fdq028
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
Background In November 2008, the Secretary of State for Health (England) commissioned an independent review to propose effective strategies for reducing health inequalities. Review task groups were given just 3 months to make preliminary evidence-based recommendations. In this paper, we describe the methodology used, and the recommendations made, by the group tasked with inequalities in priority public health conditions. Methods A series of rapid literature reviews of the policy-relevant international evidence base was undertaken. Quantitative studies of any design, which looked at the effects on health inequalities, the social gradient or overall population health effects, of interventions designed to address the social determinants of selected public health priority conditions were examined. Recommendations were distilled using a Delphi approach. Results Five key policy proposals were made: reduce smoking in the most deprived groups; improve availability of and access to healthier food choices amongst low income groups; improve the early detection and treatment of diseases; introduce a minimum price per unit for alcohol and improve the links between physical and mental health care. Conclusion The combination of rapid review and Delphi distillation produced a shortlist of evidence-based recommendations within the allocated time frame. There was a dearth of robust evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the interventions we examined: our proposals had to be based on extrapolation from general population health effects. Extensive, specific and robust evidence is urgently needed to guide policy and programmes. In the meantime, our methodology provides a reasonably sound and pragmatic basis for evidence-based policy-making.
引用
收藏
页码:496 / 505
页数:10
相关论文
共 47 条
  • [1] Acheson D., 1998, Independent inquiry into inequalities in health: report
  • [2] *ACT SMOK HLTH, 2008, SMOK KILLS PROT CHIL
  • [3] Are there socioeconomic gradients in stage and grade of breast cancer at diagnosis? Cross sectional analysis of UK cancer registry data
    Adams, J
    White, M
    Forman, D
    [J]. BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2004, 329 (7458): : 142 - 143
  • [4] *AG CONC ENG, 2009, JUST AB BREADL
  • [5] [Anonymous], 2008, Drugs: Protecting Families and Communities: The 2008 Drug Strategy
  • [6] [Anonymous], 2008, HLTH WEIGHT HLTH LIV
  • [7] [Anonymous], SHORT CHANGED HLTH S
  • [8] [Anonymous], 2010, J EPIDEMIOL COMMUN H, DOI DOI 10.1136/jech.2008.082743
  • [9] [Anonymous], 2008, MODELLING POTENTIAL
  • [10] [Anonymous], INDICATIONS PUBLIC H