Identifying research priorities for public health research to address health inequalities: use of Delphi-like survey methods

Turner, Sheila; Ollerhead, E.; Cook, Andrew

doi:10.1186/s12961-017-0252-2

Cited by 24 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The most important research priorities were mental health, a healthy environment and health behaviours, two of which coincide with indicators chosen in the current study. 53 This process should be evaluated in light of anticipated possible barriers that could interfere with its successful completion: (1) Insufficient data to create an appropriate set of potential inequity indicators: some of the indicators were "created" de novo, by combining diverse data sources, as described in the Methods section, thus broadening the existing set of indicators that could be presented for rating. (2) Complexity of content that might deter participants without a background in health: A prerequisite to effectively achieving a consensus is that all participants have an equal opportunity to understand the issue under consideration and participate in a meaningful and fair way.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing a National Set of Health Equity Indicators Using a Consensus Building Process

Wilf‐Miron

Avni

Valinsky

et al. 2021

Int J Health Policy Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Considerable health inequities documented in Israel between communities, populations and regions, undermine the rights of all citizens to optimal health. The first step towards health equity is agreement on a set of national indicators, reflecting equity in healthcare provision and health outcomes, and allowing monitoring of the impact of interventions on the reduction of disparities. We describe the process of reaching a consensus on a defined set of national equity indicators. Methods: The study was conducted between January 2019 and June 2020, in a multistage design: (A) Identifying appropriate and available inequity measures via interviews with stakeholders. (B) Agreement on the screening criteria (public health importance; gap characteristics; potential for change; public interest) and relative weighting. (C) Constructing the consultation framework as an online, 3-round Delphi technique, with a range of experts recruited from the health, welfare and education sectors. Results: Participants were of diverse age, gender, geographic location, religion and ethnicity, and came from academia, healthcare provision, government ministries and patient representative groups. Thirty measures of inequity, presented to participants, represented the following domains: Health promotion (11 indicators), acute and chronic morbidity (11), life expectancy and mortality (2), health infrastructures and affordability of care (4), education and employment (2). Of the 77 individuals contacted, 75 (97%) expressed willingness to participate, and 55 (73%) completed all three scoring rounds. The leading ten indicators were: Diabetes care, childhood obesity, adult obesity, distribution of healthcare personnel, fatal childhood injuries, cigarette smoking, infant mortality, ability to afford care, access to psychotherapy and distribution of hospital beds. Agreement among raters, measured as intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC), was 0.75. Conclusion: A diverse range of consultants reached a consensus on the most important national equity indicators, including both clinical and system indicators. Results should be used to guide governmental decision-making and inter-sectoral strategies, furthering the pursuit of a more equitable healthcare system.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing a National Set of Health Equity Indicators Using a Consensus Building Process

Wilf‐Miron

Avni

Valinsky

et al. 2021

Int J Health Policy Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Additionally, the monitoring indexes and assessment methods used by FDs in different regions for chronic disease management are inconsistent, which makes it difficult to compare, study and evaluate the effects of contracted services on chronic disease management at the national level. Therefore, this study adopted the commonly used Delphi method to construct the HRAIS [14,20,21], aiming to provide standardized assessment tools for chronic diseases and their risk factors. In order to ensure the representativeness of experts' major, 15 experts were selected to optimize the system.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Construction of health risk assessment index system for assessing the risk of chronic diseases based on the concept of massive health

Hao

Zhang

Zhao

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background : Massive health, a national strategy in China, calls for maintaining people’s health in an all-round way. This puts forward a new challenge for family doctors (FDs) to improve the ability of chronic diseases management. As the main service force in the community, FDs need to change the service concept and improve their management level of chronic diseases. In the background of massive health, we aimed to construct the health risk assessment index system (HRAIS), with the hope of helping FDs to carry out chronic disease management, especially to identify and monitor main chronic diseases and their risk factors in the community. Methods : Available health indexes, national health databases and chronic disease surveillance systems were reviewed to identify potential indexes and evaluation methods of the indexes. Delphi method was performed to establish the HRAIS, and the analytic hierarchy process was used to calculate the indexes weight. Results : The final HRAIS included 4 first-level indexes and 38 second-level indexes. We also determined the evaluation methods for the 38 indexes. The authority coefficient was 0.86. The Kendall’s W for the two rounds of Delphi consultation were 0.202 and 0.210, respectively ( p < 0.001). The weights of the first-level indexes from high to low were physiological health (0.4094), psychosocial health (0.2895), health-related behaviors (0.2047) and environment (0.0965). Conclusion : The HRAIS is a multi-dimension and multi-index tool, which can be used as a guideline for FDs in early screening, early intervention and classified management of main chronic diseases. Keywords : Chronic diseases, Health risk assessment, Index system, Family doctors, Massive health

show abstract

“…Third, we summarized the frequency of inclusion of each health area in the four inputs. Based on this summary and their expertise in the measurement of adolescent health, the 17 international experts of the GAMA Advisory Group [ 11 , 12 ] selected priority areas, using a Delphi-like approach [ 16 ] to reach consensus ( Figure 1 ). The details of our approach are described below.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Priority Areas for Adolescent Health Measurement

Guthold¹,

Moller

Adebayo

et al. 2021

Journal of Adolescent Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose We establish priority areas for adolescent health measurement and identify current gaps, aiming to focus resources on the most relevant data to improve adolescent health. Methods We collected four critical inputs to inform priority setting: perspectives of youth representatives, country priorities, disease burden, and existing measurement efforts. Health areas identified from the inputs were grouped, mapped, and summarized according to their frequency in the inputs. Using a Delphi-like approach, international experts then selected core, expanded, and context-specific priority areas for adolescent health measurement from all health areas identified. Results Across the four inputs, we identified 99 measurement areas relevant to adolescent health and grouped them under six domains: policies, programs, laws; systems performance and interventions; health determinants; health behaviors and risks; subjective well-being; and health outcomes and conditions. Areas most frequently occurring were mental health and weight status in youth representatives' opinions; sexual and reproductive health and HIV/AIDS in country policies and perspectives; road injury, self-harm, skin diseases, and mental disorders in the disease burden analysis; and adolescent fertility in measurement initiatives. Considering all four inputs, experts selected 33 core, 19 expanded, and 6 context-specific adolescent health measurement areas. Conclusion The adolescent health measurement landscape is vast, covering a large variety of topics. The foci of the measurement initiatives we reviewed do not reflect the most important health areas according to youth representatives' or country-level perspectives, or the adolescent disease burden. Based on these inputs, we propose a set of priority areas to focus national and global adolescent health measurement.

show abstract

Identifying research priorities for public health research to address health inequalities: use of Delphi-like survey methods

Cited by 24 publications

References 21 publications

Developing a National Set of Health Equity Indicators Using a Consensus Building Process

Developing a National Set of Health Equity Indicators Using a Consensus Building Process

Construction of health risk assessment index system for assessing the risk of chronic diseases based on the concept of massive health

Priority Areas for Adolescent Health Measurement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About