Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1893/27512
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorPauly, Bernadetteen_UK
dc.contributor.authorMartin, Wandaen_UK
dc.contributor.authorPerkin, Kathleenen_UK
dc.contributor.authorvan Roode, Theaen_UK
dc.contributor.authorKwan, Alberten_UK
dc.contributor.authorPatterson, Tobieen_UK
dc.contributor.authorTong, Samanthaen_UK
dc.contributor.authorPrescott, Cherylen_UK
dc.contributor.authorWallace, Bruceen_UK
dc.contributor.authorHancock, Trevoren_UK
dc.contributor.authorMacDonald, Marjorieen_UK
dc.date.accessioned2018-07-19T15:03:08Z-
dc.date.available2018-07-19T15:03:08Z-
dc.date.issued2018-04-23en_UK
dc.identifier.other48en_UK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1893/27512-
dc.description.abstractBackground Promoting health equity within health systems is a priority and challenge worldwide. Health equity tools have been identified as one strategy for integrating health equity considerations into health systems. Although there has been a proliferation of health equity tools, there has been limited attention to evaluating these tools for their practicality and thus their likelihood for uptake. Methods Within the context of a large program of research, the Equity Lens in Public Health (ELPH), we conducted a concept mapping study to identify key elements and themes related to public health leaders and practitioners’ views about what makes a health equity tool practical and useful. Concept mapping is a participatory mixed-method approach to generating ideas and concepts to address a common concern. Participants brainstormed responses to the prompt “To be useful, a health equity tool should…” After participants sorted responses into groups based on similarity and rated them for importance and feasibility, the statements were analyzed using multidimensional scaling, then grouped using cluster analysis. Pattern matching graphs were constructed to illustrate the relationship between the importance and feasibility of statements, and go-zone maps were created to guide subsequent action. Results The process resulted in 67 unique statements that were grouped into six clusters: 1) Evaluation for Improvement; 2) User Friendliness; 3) Explicit Theoretical Background; 4) Templates and Tools 5) Equity Competencies; and 6) Nothing about Me without Me- Client Engaged. The result was a set of concepts and themes describing participants’ views of the practicality and usefulness of health equity tools. Conclusions These thematic clusters highlight the importance of user friendliness and having user guides, templates and resources to enhance use of equity tools. Furthermore, participants’ indicated that practicality was not enough for a tool to be useful. In addition to practical characteristics of the tool, a useful tool is one that encourages and supports the development of practitioner competencies to engage in equity work including critical reflections on power and institutional culture as well as strategies for the involvement of community members impacted by health inequities in program planning and delivery. The results of this study will be used to inform the development of practical criteria to assess health equity tools for application in public health.en_UK
dc.language.isoenen_UK
dc.publisherSpringer Natureen_UK
dc.relationPauly B, Martin W, Perkin K, van Roode T, Kwan A, Patterson T, Tong S, Prescott C, Wallace B, Hancock T & MacDonald M (2018) Critical considerations for the practical utility of health equity tools: a concept mapping study. International Journal for Equity in Health, 17 (1), Art. No.: 48. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-018-0764-6en_UK
dc.rights© The Author(s). 2018 This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.en_UK
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en_UK
dc.subjectHealth equityen_UK
dc.subjectToolsen_UK
dc.subjectConcept mappingen_UK
dc.subjectPublic health systemsen_UK
dc.subjectAssessment criteriaen_UK
dc.titleCritical considerations for the practical utility of health equity tools: a concept mapping studyen_UK
dc.typeJournal Articleen_UK
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s12939-018-0764-6en_UK
dc.citation.jtitleInternational Journal for Equity in Healthen_UK
dc.citation.issn1475-9276en_UK
dc.citation.volume17en_UK
dc.citation.issue1en_UK
dc.citation.publicationstatusPublisheden_UK
dc.citation.peerreviewedRefereeden_UK
dc.type.statusVoR - Version of Recorden_UK
dc.contributor.funderPublic Health Agency of Canadaen_UK
dc.contributor.funderCanadian Institutes of Health Researchen_UK
dc.citation.date23/04/2018en_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationVictoria Universityen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Saskatchewanen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationMinistry of Health, British Columbiaen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Victoriaen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationPublic Health Agency of Canadaen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationFraser Health Authorityen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationFraser Health Authorityen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationBritish Columbia Centre for Disease Controlen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Victoriaen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Victoriaen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Victoriaen_UK
dc.identifier.wtid903969en_UK
dc.contributor.orcid0000-0002-4845-1383en_UK
dc.date.accepted2018-04-12en_UK
dcterms.dateAccepted2018-04-12en_UK
dc.date.filedepositdate2018-07-19en_UK
rioxxterms.apcnot requireden_UK
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_UK
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_UK
local.rioxx.authorPauly, Bernadette|0000-0002-4845-1383en_UK
local.rioxx.authorMartin, Wanda|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorPerkin, Kathleen|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorvan Roode, Thea|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorKwan, Albert|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorPatterson, Tobie|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorTong, Samantha|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorPrescott, Cheryl|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorWallace, Bruce|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorHancock, Trevor|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorMacDonald, Marjorie|en_UK
local.rioxx.projectProject ID unknown|Public Health Agency of Canada|en_UK
local.rioxx.projectFRN 116688|Canadian Institutes of Health Research|http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000024en_UK
local.rioxx.freetoreaddate2018-07-19en_UK
local.rioxx.licencehttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/|2018-07-19|en_UK
local.rioxx.filenames12939-018-0764-6.pdfen_UK
local.rioxx.filecount1en_UK
Appears in Collections:Faculty of Social Sciences Journal Articles

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
s12939-018-0764-6.pdfFulltext - Published Version1.81 MBAdobe PDFView/Open


This item is protected by original copyright



A file in this item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons

Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

The metadata of the records in the Repository are available under the CC0 public domain dedication: No Rights Reserved https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact library@stir.ac.uk providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.