DATA SOURCES: A scoping review using the Arksey and O'Malley's framework was conducted. A specific search strategy was developed with a research librarian across three databases: EMBASE, Medline, and the Maternity and Infant Care (MIC) database. Patient, Public Involvement, and Engagement (PPIE) members were consulted from the outset to co-design the research question and to provide feedback on the findings.
STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Out of 1958 articles, 19 were included in the study, with 47% from the US and 21% from Denmark. Articles were published from EMBASE. 47% of the articles measured health literacy, while 53% implemented health literacy interventions, such as digital or community-based approaches.
RESULTS: All 19 articles highlighted lower health literacy in BAME women compared to other groups. Ten proposed recommendations, while others emphasized the impact of social determinants of health, collectively underscoring the need for more research on BAME health.
CONCLUSIONS: The review underscores the inadequate health literacy and patient experience of BAME pregnant women. It also highlights the potential of digital health interventions to improve health literacy and health outcomes. The findings call for increased research into health literacy tools for BAME pregnant women. Healthcare systems, including the NHS, should allocate resources to enhance digital health interventions and address health inequalities in BAME groups during pregnancy.
METHODS: We invited eye care professionals to complete a two-round online prioritisation process. In round 1, panellists nominated population groups least able to access refractive error services, and strategies to improve access. Responses were summarised and presented in round 2, where panellists ranked the groups (by extent of difficulty and size) and strategies (in terms of reach, acceptability, sustainability, feasibility and equity). Groups and strategies were scored according to their rank within each sub-region.
RESULTS: Seventy five people from 17 countries completed both rounds (55% women). Regional differences were evident. Indigenous peoples were a priority group for improving access in Australasia and Southeast Asia, while East Asia identified refugees and Oceania identified rural/remote people. Across the five sub-regions, reducing out-of-pocket costs was a commonly prioritised strategy for refraction and spectacles. Australasia prioritised improving cultural safety, East Asia prioritised strengthening school eye health programmes and Oceania and Southeast Asia prioritised outreach to rural areas.
CONCLUSION: These results provide policy-makers, researchers and funders with a starting point for context-specific actions to improve access to refractive error services, particularly among underserved population groups who may be left behind in existing private sector-dominated models of care.
METHODS: A 55 questions survey encompassing nine domains relevant to CeD care (awareness, gluten-free [GF] foods availability/cost/quality, GF labeling, CeD dietician availability, insurance for CeD patients, medical training, research funding, patient support groups, and unmet needs) was generated and sent to CeD experts worldwide electronically. Countries were stratified based on per capita income as high-income (HIC) and lower-income countries (LIC) (including upper-middle-, lower-middle-, and low-income countries). Survey responses were summarized as a single score using principal component analysis.
RESULTS: Valid responses were obtained from 131(37.4%) [HIC: 71; LIC: 60] of contacted CeD experts from 63 countries. Compared with HIC, LIC experts perceived worse availability (HIC:80% vs LIC: 47%; P
METHODS: Our literature search of peer-reviewed English language primary source articles published between 1991 and 2018 was conducted across six databases (Embase, PubMed, Web of Sciences, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Academic Search Complete) and Google Scholar, yielding 3844 articles. After duplicate removal, we independently screened 3413 studies to determine whether they met inclusion criteria. Seventy-six studies were identified for inclusion in this review. Data were extracted on study characteristics, content, and findings.
FINDINGS: Seventy-six studies met the inclusion criteria. The most represented subgroups were Chinese (n = 74), Japanese (n = 60), and Filipino (n = 60), while Indonesian (n = 1), Malaysian (n = 1), and Burmese (n = 1) were included in only one or two studies. Several Asian American subgroups listed in the 2010 U.S. Census were not represented in any of the studies. Overall, the most studied health conditions were cancer (n = 29), diabetes (n = 13), maternal and infant health (n = 10), and cardiovascular disease (n = 9). Studies showed that health outcomes varied greatly across subgroups.
CONCLUSIONS: More research is required to focus on smaller-sized subgroup populations to obtain accurate results and address health disparities for all groups.
DESIGN: Exploratory cross-sectional survey administered by trained interviewers among participants of a health screening program.
SETTING: A rural plantation estate in the West Coast of Peninsular Malaysia.
PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and thirty out of 142 adults above 18 years old who attended the program.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Percentages of respondents reporting realised access and unmet need to health care, determinants of both access indicators and reasons for unmet need. Realised access associated with need but not predisposing or enabling factors and unmet need not associated with any variables were considered equitable.
RESULTS: A total of 88 (67.7%) respondents had visited a doctor (realised access) in the past 6 months and 24.8% (n = 31) experienced unmet need in the past 12 months. Using logistic regression, realised access was associated with presence of chronic disease (OR 6.97, P RM 2000 per month) (OR 51.27, P