Health and healthcare equity in the cancer care sector in Canada: Results of a rapid scoping review.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
e18536 Background: Despite advances in research and treatment, and a publicly funded healthcare system in Canada, alarming inequities exist across the cancer continuum. Although attention to these inequities is increasing, it is unclear how organizations are acting upon calls to address health equity. Our objective was to identify how health and healthcare equity are being discussed as a goal or aim within the Canadian cancer care sector. Methods: A rapid scoping review was conducted for published and unpublished literature on health equity in the Canadian cancer care sector. As this review was part of a larger initiative aimed at informing policy recommendations and research priorities with specific time constraints, we also drew on the WHO’s guidance for conduct of rapid reviews to strengthen health policy and systems. Five biomedical databases, 30 public health and multidisciplinary websites and databases, and Google were searched. Documents available in English, published between 2008 and 2021, and that discussed health or healthcare equity in the Canadian cancer context were included. Results: Of 3,678 documents screened, 83 were included for full text analysis. The focus on health equity within the Canadian cancer care sector increased 3-fold between 2015-2021 when compared with the period 2008-2014. Only 25% of documents included a definition of health equity. Concepts such as inequity, inequality, and disparity were frequently used interchangeably or in a tokenistic way, resulting in conceptual muddling. Less than half of documents included an explicit health equity goal. Stated health equity goals ranged from broad to specific, with examples from across the cancer continuum. A range of actions were described to address equity goals, including health system improvements and policy and planning considerations. Most actions were framed as recommendations rather than actions taken or underway, and few documents described measurement of progress toward health equity goals. Conclusions: Health equity is a growing priority in the cancer care sector, however conceptual clarity is needed to guide the development of robust equity goals, specific objectives, and meaningful action. Moreover, evaluation mechanisms to understand the impacts of actions on equity goals are urgently needed. If we are to advance health equity in the cancer care sector, a coordinated and integrated approach will be required to enact transformative and meaningful change.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,048 | 0,120 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,045 | 0,080 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,010 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».