Cargando…

Bridging ethics and epidemiology: Modelling ethical standards of health equity

Health inequities are differences in health that are ‘unjust’. Yet, despite competing ethical views about what counts as an ‘unjust difference in health’, theoretical insights from ethics have not been systematically integrated into epidemiological research. Using diabetes as an example, we explore...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Smith, Brendan T., Warren, Christine M., Rosella, Laura C., Smith, Maxwell J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10477740/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37674979
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2023.101481
_version_ 1785101200332423168
author Smith, Brendan T.
Warren, Christine M.
Rosella, Laura C.
Smith, Maxwell J.
author_facet Smith, Brendan T.
Warren, Christine M.
Rosella, Laura C.
Smith, Maxwell J.
author_sort Smith, Brendan T.
collection PubMed
description Health inequities are differences in health that are ‘unjust’. Yet, despite competing ethical views about what counts as an ‘unjust difference in health’, theoretical insights from ethics have not been systematically integrated into epidemiological research. Using diabetes as an example, we explore the impact of adopting different ethical standards of health equity on population health outcomes. Specifically, we explore how the implementation of population-level weight-loss interventions using different ethical standards of equity impacts the intervention's implementation and resultant population health outcomes. We conducted a risk prediction modelling study using the nationally representative 2015-16 Canadian Community Health Survey (n = 75,044, 54% women). We used the Diabetes Population Risk Tool (DPoRT) to calculate individual-level 10-year diabetes risk. Hypothetical weight-loss interventions were modelled in individuals with overweight or obesity based on each ethical standard: 1) health sufficiency (reduce DPoRT risk below a high-risk threshold (16.5%); 2) health equality (equalize DPoRT risk to the low risk group (5%)); 3) social-health sufficiency (reduce DPoRT risk <16.5 in individuals with lower education); 4) social-health equality (equalize DPoRT risk to the level of individuals with high education). For each scenario, we calculated intervention impacts, diabetes cases prevented or delayed, and relative and absolute educational inequities in diabetes. Overall, we estimated that achieving health sufficiency (i.e., all individuals below the diabetes risk threshold) was more feasible than achieving health equality (i.e., diabetes risk equalized for all individuals), requiring smaller initial investments and fewer interventions; however, fewer diabetes cases were prevented or delayed. Further, targeting only diabetes inequalities related to education reduced the target population size and number of interventions required, but consequently resulted in even fewer diabetes cases prevented or delayed. Using diabetes as an example, we found that an explicit, ethically-informed definition of health equity is essential to guide population-level interventions that aim to reduce health inequities.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10477740
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-104777402023-09-06 Bridging ethics and epidemiology: Modelling ethical standards of health equity Smith, Brendan T. Warren, Christine M. Rosella, Laura C. Smith, Maxwell J. SSM Popul Health Regular Article Health inequities are differences in health that are ‘unjust’. Yet, despite competing ethical views about what counts as an ‘unjust difference in health’, theoretical insights from ethics have not been systematically integrated into epidemiological research. Using diabetes as an example, we explore the impact of adopting different ethical standards of health equity on population health outcomes. Specifically, we explore how the implementation of population-level weight-loss interventions using different ethical standards of equity impacts the intervention's implementation and resultant population health outcomes. We conducted a risk prediction modelling study using the nationally representative 2015-16 Canadian Community Health Survey (n = 75,044, 54% women). We used the Diabetes Population Risk Tool (DPoRT) to calculate individual-level 10-year diabetes risk. Hypothetical weight-loss interventions were modelled in individuals with overweight or obesity based on each ethical standard: 1) health sufficiency (reduce DPoRT risk below a high-risk threshold (16.5%); 2) health equality (equalize DPoRT risk to the low risk group (5%)); 3) social-health sufficiency (reduce DPoRT risk <16.5 in individuals with lower education); 4) social-health equality (equalize DPoRT risk to the level of individuals with high education). For each scenario, we calculated intervention impacts, diabetes cases prevented or delayed, and relative and absolute educational inequities in diabetes. Overall, we estimated that achieving health sufficiency (i.e., all individuals below the diabetes risk threshold) was more feasible than achieving health equality (i.e., diabetes risk equalized for all individuals), requiring smaller initial investments and fewer interventions; however, fewer diabetes cases were prevented or delayed. Further, targeting only diabetes inequalities related to education reduced the target population size and number of interventions required, but consequently resulted in even fewer diabetes cases prevented or delayed. Using diabetes as an example, we found that an explicit, ethically-informed definition of health equity is essential to guide population-level interventions that aim to reduce health inequities. Elsevier 2023-08-02 /pmc/articles/PMC10477740/ /pubmed/37674979 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2023.101481 Text en Crown Copyright © 2023 Published by Elsevier Ltd. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Regular Article
Smith, Brendan T.
Warren, Christine M.
Rosella, Laura C.
Smith, Maxwell J.
Bridging ethics and epidemiology: Modelling ethical standards of health equity
title Bridging ethics and epidemiology: Modelling ethical standards of health equity
title_full Bridging ethics and epidemiology: Modelling ethical standards of health equity
title_fullStr Bridging ethics and epidemiology: Modelling ethical standards of health equity
title_full_unstemmed Bridging ethics and epidemiology: Modelling ethical standards of health equity
title_short Bridging ethics and epidemiology: Modelling ethical standards of health equity
title_sort bridging ethics and epidemiology: modelling ethical standards of health equity
topic Regular Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10477740/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37674979
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2023.101481
work_keys_str_mv AT smithbrendant bridgingethicsandepidemiologymodellingethicalstandardsofhealthequity
AT warrenchristinem bridgingethicsandepidemiologymodellingethicalstandardsofhealthequity
AT rosellalaurac bridgingethicsandepidemiologymodellingethicalstandardsofhealthequity
AT smithmaxwellj bridgingethicsandepidemiologymodellingethicalstandardsofhealthequity