Health Equity Talk: Understandings of Health Equity among Health Leaders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Reducing health inequities is a stated goal of health systems worldwide. There is widespread commitment to health equity among public health leaders and calls for reorientation of health systems towards health equity. As part of the Equity Lens in Public Health (ELPH) program of research, public health decision makers and researchers in British Columbia collaborated to study the application of a health equity lens in a time of health system renewal. We drew on intersectionality, complexity and critical social justice theories to understand how participants construct health equity and apply a health equity lens as part of public health renewal. METHODS: 15 focus groups and 16 individual semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 55 health system leaders. Data were analyzed using constant comparative analysis to explore how health equity was constructed in relation to understandings and actions. RESULTS: Four main themes were identified in terms of how health care leaders construct health equity and actions to reduce health inequities: (1) population health, (2) determinants of health, and (3) accessibility and (4) challenges of health equity talk. The first three aspects of health equity talk reflect different understandings of health equity rooted in vulnerability (individual versus structural), determinants of health (material versus social determinants), and appropriate health system responses (targeted versus universal responses). Participants identified that talking about health equity in the health care system, either inside or outside of public health, is a 'challenging conversation' because health equity is understood in diverse ways and there is little guidance available to apply a health equity lens. CONCLUSIONS: These findings reflect the importance of creating a shared understanding of health equity within public health systems, and providing guidance and clarity as to the meaning and application of a health equity lens. A health equity lens for public health should capture both the production and distribution of health inequities and link to social justice to inform action.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".