Suchergebnisse

Inequitable healthcare access, experiences and outcomes across ethnic groups are of concern across many countries. Progress on this agenda appears limited in England given the apparently strong legal and policy framework. This disjuncture raises questions about how central government policy is translated into local services. Healthcare commissioning organisations are a potentially powerful influence on services, but have rarely been examined from an equity perspective. We undertook a mixed method exploration of English Primary Care Trust (PCT) commissioning in 2010–12, to identify barriers and enablers to commissioning that addresses ethnic healthcare inequities, employing:- in-depth interviews with 19 national Key Informants; documentation of 10 good practice examples; detailed case studies of three PCTs (70+ interviews; extensive observational work and documentary analysis); three national stakeholder workshops. We found limited and patchy attention to ethnic diversity and inequity within English healthcare commissioning. Marginalization of this agenda, along with ambivalence, a lack of clarity and limited confidence, perpetuated a reinforcing inter-play between individual managers, their organisational setting and the wider policy context. Despite the apparent contrary indications, ethnic equity was a peripheral concern within national healthcare policy; poorly aligned with other more dominant agendas. Locally, consideration of ethnicity was often treated as a matter of legal compliance rather than integral to understanding and meeting healthcare needs. Many managers and teams did not consider tackling ethnic healthcare inequities to be part-and-parcel of their job, lacked confidence and skills to do so, and questioned the legitimacy of such work. Our findings indicate the need to enhance the skills, confidence and competence of individual managers and commissioning teams and to improve organizational structures and processes that support attention to ethnic inequity. Greater political will and clearer ...

Background - Addressing health inequalities remains a prominent policy objective of the current UK government, but current NHS reforms involve a significant shift in roles and responsibilities. Clinicians are now placed at the heart of healthcare commissioning through which significant inequalities in access, uptake and impact of healthcare services must be addressed. Questions arise as to whether these new arrangements will help or hinder progress on health inequalities. This paper explores the perspectives of experienced healthcare professionals working within the commissioning arena; many of whom are likely to remain key actors in this unfolding scenario. Methods - Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 42 professionals involved with health and social care commissioning at national and local levels. These included representatives from the Department of Health, Primary Care Trusts, Strategic Health Authorities, Local Authorities, and third sector organisations. Results - In general, respondents lamented the lack of progress on health inequalities during the PCT commissioning era, where strong policy had not resulted in measurable improvements. However, there was concern that GP-led commissioning will fare little better, particularly in a time of reduced spending. Specific concerns centred on: reduced commitment to a health inequalities agenda; inadequate skills and loss of expertise; and weakened partnership working and engagement. There were more mixed opinions as to whether GP commissioners would be better able than their predecessors to challenge large provider trusts and shift spend towards prevention and early intervention, and whether GPs' clinical experience would support commissioning action on inequalities. Though largely pessimistic, respondents highlighted some opportunities, including the potential for greater accountability of healthcare commissioners to the public and more influential needs assessments via emergent Health & Wellbeing Boards. Conclusions - There is doubt about the ability of GP commissioners to take clearer action on health inequalities than PCTs have historically achieved. Key actors expect the contribution from commissioning to address health inequalities to become even more piecemeal in the new arrangements, as it will be dependent upon the interest and agency of particular individuals within the new commissioning groups to engage and influence a wider range of stakeholders.

The National Health Policy in India mentions equity as a key policy principle and emphasises the role of affirmative action in achieving health equity for a range of excluded groups. We conducted a scoping review of literature and three multi-stakeholder workshops to better understand the available evidence on the impact of affirmative action policies in enhancing the inclusion of ethnic and religious minorities in health, education and governance in India. We consider these public services an important mechanism to enhance the social inclusion of many excluded groups. On the whole, the available empirical evidence regarding the uptake and impact of affirmative action policies is limited. Reservation policies in higher education and electoral constituencies have had a limited positive impact in enhancing the access and representation of minorities. However, reservations in government jobs remain poorly implemented. In general, class, gender and location intersect, creating inter- and intra-group differentials in the impact of these policies. Several government initiatives aimed at enhancing the access of religious minorities to public services/institutions remain poorly evaluated. Future research and practice need to focus on neglected but relevant research themes such as the role of private sector providers in supporting the inclusion of minorities, the political aspects of policy development and implementation, and the role of social mobilisation and movements. Evidence gaps also need to be filled in relation to information systems for monitoring and assessment of social disadvantage, implementation and evaluative research on inclusive policies and understanding how the pathways to inequities can be effectively addressed.

The National Health Policy in India mentions equity as a key policy principle and emphasises the role of affirmative action in achieving health equity for a range of excluded groups. We conducted a scoping review of literature and three multi-stakeholder workshops to better understand the available evidence on the impact of affirmative action policies in enhancing the inclusion of ethnic and religious minorities in health, education and governance in India. We consider these public services an important mechanism to enhance the social inclusion of many excluded groups. On the whole, the available empirical evidence regarding the uptake and impact of affirmative action policies is limited. Reservation policies in higher education and electoral constituencies have had a limited positive impact in enhancing the access and representation of minorities. However, reservations in government jobs remain poorly implemented. In general, class, gender and location intersect, creating inter- and intra-group differentials in the impact of these policies. Several government initiatives aimed at enhancing the access of religious minorities to public services/institutions remain poorly evaluated. Future research and practice need to focus on neglected but relevant research themes such as the role of private sector providers in supporting the inclusion of minorities, the political aspects of policy development and implementation, and the role of social mobilisation and movements. Evidence gaps also need to be filled in relation to information systems for monitoring and assessment of social disadvantage, implementation and evaluative research on inclusive policies and understanding how the pathways to inequities can be effectively addressed.

Abstract Background Addressing health inequalities remains a prominent policy objective of the current UK government, but current NHS reforms involve a significant shift in roles and responsibilities. Clinicians are now placed at the heart of healthcare commissioning through which significant inequalities in access, uptake and impact of healthcare services must be addressed. Questions arise as to whether these new arrangements will help or hinder progress on health inequalities. This paper explores the perspectives of experienced healthcare professionals working within the commissioning arena; many of whom are likely to remain key actors in this unfolding scenario. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 42 professionals involved with health and social care commissioning at national and local levels. These included representatives from the Department of Health, Primary Care Trusts, Strategic Health Authorities, Local Authorities, and third sector organisations. Results In general, respondents lamented the lack of progress on health inequalities during the PCT commissioning era, where strong policy had not resulted in measurable improvements. However, there was concern that GP-led commissioning will fare little better, particularly in a time of reduced spending. Specific concerns centred on: reduced commitment to a health inequalities agenda; inadequate skills and loss of expertise; and weakened partnership working and engagement. There were more mixed opinions as to whether GP commissioners would be better able than their predecessors to challenge large provider trusts and shift spend towards prevention and early intervention, and whether GPs' clinical experience would support commissioning action on inequalities. Though largely pessimistic, respondents highlighted some opportunities, including the potential for greater accountability of healthcare commissioners to the public and more influential needs assessments via emergent Health & Wellbeing Boards. Conclusions There is doubt about the ability of GP commissioners to take clearer action on health inequalities than PCTs have historically achieved. Key actors expect the contribution from commissioning to address health inequalities to become even more piecemeal in the new arrangements, as it will be dependent upon the interest and agency of particular individuals within the new commissioning groups to engage and influence a wider range of stakeholders.

PurposeThe importance of social exclusion and the disadvantage experienced by many minority ethnic and religious populations are rooted in SDG 10. To address this exclusion effectively it is important to understand their key drivers. This paper aimed to establish the key drivers of exclusion and their outcomes in Nigeria.Design/methodology/approachThe methods involved a scoping review of literature and stakeholder workshops that focused on drivers of social exclusion of religious and ethnic minorities in public institutions.FindingsAt the macro level, the drivers include ineffective centralized federal State, competition for resources and power among groups, geographic developmental divide and socio-cultural/religious issues. At the meso-level are institutional rules and competition for resources, stereotypes and misconceptions, barriers to access and service provision. At the micro-level are socio-economic status and health-seeking behaviour. The perceived impact of social exclusion included increasing illiteracy, lack of employment, deteriorating health care services, increased social vices, communal clashes and insurgencies and vulnerability to exploitation and humiliation. These drivers must be taken into consideration in the development of interventions for preventing or reducing social exclusion of ethnic and religious minorities from public services.Originality/valueThis is a case of co-production by all the stakeholders and a novel way for the identification of drivers of social exclusion in public services in Nigeria. It is the first step towards solving the problem of exclusion and has implications for the achievement of SDG 10 in Nigeria.

Social inequalities are intensifying globally and widening divisions are linked to civil unrest. Disadvantaged ethnic and religious groups experience poor access to, representation in and outcomes from public services such as healthcare and education. As mechanisms for social participation and citizenship, public services are key to inclusive and sustainable societies. In this paper we present results of a systematic review on strategies for the inclusion of minority ethnic and religious communities, often neglected populations in term of sustainable development activity. We focus on four public service areas: education, health, local government and police services and identify evidence gaps. Our overall aim is to raise awareness and provoke debate, reflection and subsequently action towards the inclusion of disadvantaged ethnic and religious minorities within public services. Public service inclusion strategies were identified through a global evidence review and four country specific reviews conducted by the Socially Inclusive Cities Network - academics, NGOs, policy - makers and practitioners from India, Kenya, Nigeria, Vietnam and the UK. Published evidence was supplemented by country-based and international workshops involving over 230 relevant stakeholders. We specifically explored intersectional experience relating to gender, age and migration status. 56 publications were identified for the global review, mostly in health and education. Macro (social and political), meso (institutional) and micro (individual) arena were identified as three distinct but interconnected levels through which exclusion is operationalized. Three overarching frameworks appeared key to successful ethnic and religious inclusion initiatives: accounting for social context; multiple strategies for system reform; and collaboration with disadvantaged communities. Inclusion strategies that address macro, meso and micro level drivers of exclusion are needed to achieve the aspirations of SDG 10. Involving affected communities is key to their success.

Presents a pioneering collection studying religion as a wider determinant of health in BritainHighlights the role of religion in exacerbating health inequalities, along with ethnicity, racism, social class and deprivationInvestigates contemporary health inequalities among second and third generation British Muslims, with a particular focus on disadvantaged childrenCaptures a wide range of health issues that British Muslims live with, such as: structural discrimination; COVID-19; mental health; consanguinity; genetic predispositions; dementia; domestic violence; end of life care; absentee fathers; and migrationCritically appraises current health practices and methods and offers practical guidelines on how to involve British Muslims in health promotion initiativesIncludes a foreword by Professor Aziz Sheikh, OBE, Chair of Primary Care Research and Development, University of EdinburghThis landmark volume presents the lived experience of British Muslims in regards to health inequalities, access to health services and involvement in health promotion initiatives. Exploring religion, ethnicity, racism, social class and deprivation, the book examines how British Muslims interact with the UK healthcare system and the subsequent marginalisation in accessing benefits from those systems. Authors expose the unequal distribution of health benefits among British Muslims and explore how this has come to the fore during the COVID-19 pandemic. Using reflexive, interpretive, critical and evidence-based data-driven scenarios from across the UK; this book identifies loopholes in the healthcare system affecting high-risk groups. In doing so, it analyses why and how British Muslims live with the worst health outcomes when compared with all deprived social groups and ethnicities in the country