Suchergebnisse

There is a growing need to promote volunteerism among youth, given the declining rates across Western countries, and the societal and individual benefits gained through community engagement. Research has focused on individual predictors of volunteerism, but little is known about the role of context, such as urban–rural differences when examining comparable cohorts. Using data from a Canadian survey and semi-structured interviews, we documented differences in volunteer motivations and barriers between urban and rural youth. Survey results showed that rural youth volunteered more hours if they had friends who volunteered, whereas urban youth invested more hours if they were motivated to explore their strengths. Qualitative findings highlighted the importance of networks as levers to formal and informal volunteering, especially for rural youth, and the unique social and structural barriers related to volunteerism depending on place of residence. Contextual factors should be considered when designing strategies to recruit and retain young volunteers.

INTRODUCTION: Tackling health inequities both within and between countries remains high on the agenda of international organizations including the World Health Organization and local, regional and national governments. Systematic reviews can be a useful tool to assess effects on equity in health status because they include studies conducted in a variety of settings and populations. This study aims to describe the extent to which the impacts of health interventions on equity in health status are considered in systematic reviews, describe methods used, and assess the implications of their equity related findings for policy, practice and research. METHODS: We conducted a methodology study of equity assessment in systematic reviews. Two independent reviewers extracted information on the reporting and analysis of impacts of health interventions on equity in health status in a group of 300 systematic reviews collected from all systematic reviews indexed in one month of MEDLINE, using a pre-tested data collection form. Any differences in data extraction were resolved by discussion. RESULTS: Of the 300 systematic reviews, 224 assessed the effectiveness of interventions on health outcomes. Of these 224 reviews, 29 systematic reviews assessed effects on equity in health status using subgroup analysis or targeted analyses of vulnerable populations. Of these, seven conducted subgroup analyses related to health equity which were reported in insufficient detail to judge their credibility. Of these 29 reviews, 18 described implications for policy and practice based on assessment of effects on health equity. CONCLUSION: The quality and completeness of reporting should be enhanced as a priority, because without this policymakers and practitioners will continue lack the evidence base they need to inform decision-making about health inequity. Furthermore, there is a need to develop methods to systematically consider impacts on equity in health status that is currently lacking in systematic reviews.

AbstractIntroductionHealth equity is a moral and ethical imperative for clinicians, researchers, policymakers, and all who use health research. Both Cochrane and the Campbell Collaboration have focused on health equity for many years.MethodsThe new Equity Group will continue and expand this work by designing a program of projects aiming to (1) promote equity in the evidence base, (2) ensure equitable processes for stakeholder engagement, (3) produce high‐priority, equity‐focused evidence syntheses, (4) build capacity for equity design, analysis, and reporting, and (5) promote equity in implementation tools.ResultsWe will build on our current network of collaborators and create a group structure striving to recruit across the PROGRESS‐Plus characteristics.ConclusionWe invite readers to join our cause and contribute wherever they are able. Together, we can help Cochrane achieve its social responsibility of improving health equity at a planetary level.