Editorial: Social inequality and equity in community actions for health
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Consequently, we launched this research topic on the 21 st of September 2021 with the aim of cataloguing articles that document health inequality and inequity globally as well as articles that address both through community action.Of the manuscripts that were submitted, we eventually accepted and published 10 which fall into four research areas: (1) relationship between social inequality and health outcomes, (2) community actions among socially vulnerable groups, (3) role of health professionals in addressing health inequity in communities and (4) new concepts in defining health disparities.There is a gradient between socioeconomic status and health with each level in the hierarchy generally having less morbidity and mortality. For some health conditions, however, there has been no change in health or worsening health status over time for economically disadvantaged populations. 6 Holder-Pearson and Chase in their opinion article describe how certain marginalized ethnic and socioeconomic groups in New Zealand bear a disproportionately high burden of Type 2 diabetes mellitus, suffer higher financial costs of care and have lower access to life-saving treatment. Contrarily, two studies in our topic did not elicit negative health outcomes among populations with social disadvantages. First, Chan et al. in their review article show that individuals experiencing homelessness and traumatic brain injuries in studies from United States of America and Canada had rehabilitation services available to them. They recommend that existing rehabilitation for these individuals should be tailored to include screening for TBI, conducting cognitive and functional assessments and involve multidisciplinary teams. Second, Hamilton et al. in their single-center retrospective study of 73 children with medical complexities presenting with sepsis, did not find any association between social determinants of health and length of stay in the pediatric intensive care unit.Community actions play a vital role in promoting health equity, as they occur at a level closer to individuals and can be better targeted at high-risk individuals. Each community is unique in the nature and degree of health inequities as well the required community-based efforts. These articles underscore the central role health care professionals have in addressing health inequity. Indeed, a previous study includes provider distribution according to population need and practice patterns oriented to addressing root causes of disparities as some of the critical domains to advancing health equity. 8 Two new concepts feature in the fourth area of research. The first by Dierx and Kasper details the development of a new grouping to measure socio-economic status, providing new insights into health inequalities. This is critical since advancement of health equity requires a proper assessment of differences in health and its determinants. 9 Development of structured formats of measurements for different societies is deemed necessary. 10 The second by Ju et al. proposes a new model for the process of rumor diffusion about COVID-19 and they recommend announcing true information publicly to instantly contain the COVID-19 rumor diffusion.In conclusion, our research topic brought together multiple scientific disciplines to catalogue social inequality, health inequity, community and health care professionals' actions and innovation to advance health equity. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the relevance of communitybased efforts to advance health equity. Most of our studies were cross-sectional; further studies that use randomized control trials and/or longitudinal data are recommended to establish causal relationships.
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 | 0,010 | 0,041 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,006 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,011 | 0,007 |
| Science ouverte | 0,005 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,020 | 0,023 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,021 | 0,010 |
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 ».