1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Disparities in healthcare access and utilization among people living with HIV in China: a scoping review and meta-analysis

      Preprint
      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Healthcare disparities hinder the goal of ending the HIV pandemic by 2030. This review aimed to understand the status of healthcare disparities among people living with HIV (PLWH) in China and summarize driving factors.

          Methods

          We searched six databases: PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Scopus, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and China Wanfang. English or Chinese articles published between January 2000 and July 2022 were included if they focused on any disparities in access to and utilization of healthcare among PLWH in China. Grey literature, reviews, conferences, and commentaries were excluded. A random effects model was used to calculate the pooled estimates of data on healthcare access/utilization and identified the driving factors of healthcare disparities based on a socio-ecological framework.

          Results

          A total of 8728 articles were identified in the initial search. Fifty-one articles met the inclusion criteria. Of these studies, 37 studies reported HIV-focused care, and 14 focused on non-HIV-focused care. PLWH aged ≥ 45 years, female, ethnic minority, and infected with HIV through sexual transmission had a higher rate of receiving antiretroviral therapy (ART). Females living with HIV have higher adherence to ART than males. Notably, 20% (95% CI, 9–43%, I 2 = 96%) of PLWH with illness in two weeks did not seek treatment, and 30% (95% CI, 12–74%, I 2 = 90%) refused hospitalization when needed. Barriers to HIV-focused care included the lack of knowledge of HIV/ART and treatment side effects at the individual level, and social discrimination and physician-patient relationships at the community/social level. Structural barriers included out-of-pocket medical costs, and distance and transportation issues. The most frequently reported barriers to non-HIV-focused care were financial constraints and the perceived need for medical services at individual-level factors; and discrimination from healthcare providers, distrust of healthcare services at the community/social level.

          Conclusion

          This review suggests disparities in ART access, adherence, and utilization of non-HIV-focused care among PLWH. Financial issues and social discrimination were prominent reasons for healthcare disparities in PLWH care. Creating a supportive social environment and expanding insurance policies, like covering more medical services and increasing reimbursement rates could be considered to promote healthcare equity.

          Related collections

          Most cited references96

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Enhancing the scoping study methodology: a large, inter-professional team’s experience with Arksey and O’Malley’s framework

            Background Scoping studies are increasingly common for broadly searching the literature on a specific topic, yet researchers lack an agreed-upon definition of and framework for the methodology. In 2005, Arksey and O’Malley offered a methodological framework for conducting scoping studies. In their subsequent work, Levac et al. responded to Arksey and O’Malley’s call for advances to their framework. Our paper builds on this collective work to further enhance the methodology. Discussion This paper begins with a background on what constitutes a scoping study, followed by a discussion about four primary subjects: (1) the types of questions for which Arksey and O’Malley’s framework is most appropriate, (2) a contribution to the discussion aimed at enhancing the six steps of Arskey and O’Malley’s framework, (3) the strengths and challenges of our experience working with Arksey and O’Malley’s framework as a large, inter-professional team, and (4) lessons learned. Our goal in this paper is to add to the discussion encouraged by Arksey and O’Malley to further enhance this methodology. Summary Performing a scoping study using Arksey and O’Malley’s framework was a valuable process for our research team even if how it was useful was unexpected. Based on our experience, we recommend researchers be aware of their expectations for how Arksey and O’Malley’s framework might be useful in relation to their research question, and remain flexible to clarify concepts and to revise the research question as the team becomes familiar with the literature. Questions portraying comparisons such as between interventions, programs, or approaches seem to be the most suitable to scoping studies. We also suggest assessing the quality of studies and conducting a trial of the method before fully embarking on the charting process in order to ensure consistency. The benefits of engaging a large, inter-professional team such as ours throughout every stage of Arksey and O’Malley’s framework far exceed the challenges and we recommend researchers consider the value of such a team. The strengths include breadth and depth of knowledge each team member brings to the study and time efficiencies. In our experience, the most significant challenges presented to our team were those related to consensus and resource limitations. Effective communication is key to the success of a large group. We propose that by clarifying the framework, the purposes of scoping studies are attainable and the definition is enriched.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Health disparities and health equity: concepts and measurement.

              There is little consensus about the meaning of the terms "health disparities," "health inequalities," or "health equity." The definitions can have important practical consequences, determining the measurements that are monitored by governments and international agencies and the activities that will be supported by resources earmarked to address health disparities/inequalities or health equity. This paper aims to clarify the concepts of health disparities/inequalities (used interchangeably here) and health equity, focusing on the implications of different definitions for measurement and hence for accountability. Health disparities/inequalities do not refer to all differences in health. A health disparity/inequality is a particular type of difference in health (or in the most important influences on health that could potentially be shaped by policies); it is a difference in which disadvantaged social groups-such as the poor, racial/ethnic minorities, women, or other groups who have persistently experienced social disadvantage or discrimination-systematically experience worse health or greater health risks than more advantaged social groups. ("Social advantage" refers to one's relative position in a social hierarchy determined by wealth, power, and/or prestige.) Health disparities/inequalities include differences between the most advantaged group in a given category-e.g., the wealthiest, the most powerful racial/ethnic group-and all others, not only between the best- and worst-off groups. Pursuing health equity means pursuing the elimination of such health disparities/inequalities.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Res Sq
                ResearchSquare
                Research Square
                American Journal Experts
                06 April 2023
                : rs.3.rs-2744464
                Affiliations
                Nanjing Medical University
                Nanjing Medical University
                University of North Carolina Project-China
                University of North Carolina Project-China
                University of North Carolina Project-China
                Monash University
                University of North Carolina Project-China
                Jiangsu Provincial Centre for Disease Control and Prevention
                Nanjing Medical University
                Author notes

                Authors' contributions

                WT and GF conceived the study. WA and CF performed all database scans and articles for inclusion, generated all tables and figures, and drafted the first draft. GF, JT, JO, DW, GM, and RT provided critical revision of the paper. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

                Article
                10.21203/rs.3.rs-2744464
                10.21203/rs.3.rs-2744464/v1
                10104255
                37066259
                4e8a9a53-90c0-4bb9-a26a-e927d6ed55b3

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which allows reusers to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the material in any medium or format, so long as attribution is given to the creator. The license allows for commercial use.

                License: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Read Full License

                History
                Funding
                This work was supported by the Key Technologies Research and Development Program (2022YFC2304900-4 to WT), National Institute of Health (R34MH119963 to WT), National Nature Science Foundation of China (81903371 to WT), and CRDF Global (G-202104-67775 to WT). The funders had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Article

                healthcare disparities,healthcare utilization,quality of healthcare,healthcare needs,hiv,plwh

                Comments

                Comment on this article