The role of cultural, community and natural assets in addressing societal and structural health inequalities in the UK: future research priorities.
The role of cultural, community and natural assets in addressing societal and structural health inequalities in the UK: future research priorities.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s12939-021-01590-4
复制
发表时间：
2021-11-24
影响因子：
4.8
通讯作者：
Chatterjee HJ
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Thomson LJ;Gordon-Nesbitt R;Elsden E;Chatterjee HJ
20多年来，减少健康不平等一直是联合王国的一项政策优先事项，然而，尽管努力创造一个更加平等的社会，但进展有限。此外，一些不平等现象已经扩大并变得更加明显，特别是在新冠肺炎大流行期间。随着人们越来越认识到预期寿命和身心健康分布不均，目前的研究委托确定未来的研究重点，以解决英国社会和结构性健康不平等。一个专家意见咨询过程，包括一个匿名的在线调查和咨询研讨会进行了调查的优先领域，为未来的研究到英国的不平等。七个问题的调查要求受访者（n = 170）指出他们目前的作用，确定和优先考虑的不平等领域，方法和评估方法，并评论未来的研究重点。举办讲习班的目的是确定研究的优先领域，代表一系列学术学科和政策和实践研究的最终用户的非公开代表名单（n = 30）出席了讲习班。代表们从四个分组中选出一个，以确定四类不平等（健康、社会、经济和其他）的研究优先领域，并为选定的优先事项分配假设的资金总额（500万、100万、500万和1000万英镑）。使用混合方法分析了响应。受访者主要是“学者”（33%）、“志愿/第三部门专业人士”（17%）和“创意/文化专业人士”（16%）。调查问题确定的主要不平等领域是“健康”（58%）、“社会护理”（54%）和“生活水平”（47%）。第一个研究重点是“获得创造性和文化机会”（37%），第二，“地方感”（23%），第三，“社区”（17%）。在解决不平等问题方面，从更多研究中受益的方法是“保健/社会护理”（55%）、“咨询服务”（34%）和“成人教育/培训”（26%）。首选的评价方法是“社区/参与”（76%）、“行动研究”（62%）和“问卷/焦点小组”（53%）。调查受访者（25%）对不平等与政治和经济决策以及气候等问题之间的相互作用发表了评论。研讨会在确定不平等领域的研究优先事项方面得出的主要结论是，只有通过解决社会和结构性不平等、环境条件和住房问题，并制定积极的预防方案，才能实现健康公平。研究表明，显然需要评估文化和自然资产对减少不平等的影响。社区团体、服务提供者、地方当局、卫生专员、全科医生和研究人员需要在多学科方法内使用纵向方法进行合作，以解决社会和结构性健康不平等问题。
Reducing health inequalities in the UK has been a policy priority for over 20 years, yet, despite efforts to create a more equal society, progress has been limited. Furthermore, some inequalities have widened and become more apparent, particularly during the Covid-19 pandemic. With growing recognition of the uneven distribution of life expectancy and of mental and physical health, the current research was commissioned to identify future research priorities to address UK societal and structural health inequalities. An expert opinion consultancy process comprising an anonymous online survey and a consultation workshop were conducted to investigate priority areas for future research into UK inequalities. The seven-question survey asked respondents (n = 170) to indicate their current role, identify and prioritise areas of inequality, approaches and evaluation methods, and comment on future research priorities. The workshop was held to determine areas of research priority and attended by a closed list of delegates (n = 30) representing a range of academic disciplines and end-users of research from policy and practice. Delegates self-selected one of four breakout groups to determine research priority areas in four categories of inequality (health, social, economic, and other) and to allocate hypothetical sums of funding (half, one, five, and ten million pounds) to chosen priorities. Responses were analysed using mixed methods. Survey respondents were mainly ‘academics’ (33%), ‘voluntary/third sector professionals’ (17%), and ‘creative/cultural professionals’(16%). Survey questions identified the main areas of inequality as ‘health’ (58%), ‘social care’ (54%), and ‘living standards’ (47%). The first research priority was ‘access to creative and cultural opportunities’ (37%), second, ‘sense of place’ (23%), and third, ‘community’ (17%). Approaches seen to benefit from more research in relation to addressing inequalities were ‘health/social care’ (55%), ‘advice services’ (34%), and ‘adult education/training’ (26%). Preferred evaluation methods were ‘community/participatory’ (76%), ‘action research’ (62%), and ‘questionnaires/focus groups’ (53%). Survey respondents (25%) commented on interactions between inequalities and issues such as political and economic decisions, and climate. The key workshop finding from determining research priorities in areas of inequality was that health equity could only be achieved by tackling societal and structural inequalities, environmental conditions and housing, and having an active prevention programme. Research demonstrates a clear need to assess the impact of cultural and natural assets in reducing inequality. Collaborations between community groups, service providers, local authorities, health commissioners, GPs, and researchers using longitudinal methods are needed within a multi-disciplinary approach to address societal and structural health inequalities.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
11.4
作者：
Alcock, Ian;White, Mathew P.;Depledge, Michael H.
通讯作者：
Depledge, Michael H.
DOI：
10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.04.002
发表时间：
2013-10-01
影响因子：
8.9
作者：
Fisher, Janet A.;Patenaude, Genevieve;Woodhouse, Iain H.
通讯作者：
Woodhouse, Iain H.
客观测量的住宅环境和自我报告的健康：对英国人口普查数据的多层次分析。
影响因子：
3.7
作者：
Dunstan F;Fone DL;Glickman M;Palmer S
通讯作者：
Palmer S
影响因子：
6.2
作者：
Eschleman, Kevin J.;Madsen, Jamie;Barelka, Alex
通讯作者：
Barelka, Alex
影响因子：
3.7
作者：
Brown, Eleanor D.;Benedett, Barbara;Armistead, M. Elizabeth
通讯作者：
Armistead, M. Elizabeth