Social exclusion in primary healthcare settings: the time for measurement has come

Authors

  • Patrick O’Donnell University of Limerick
  • Khalifa Elmusharaf University of Limerick

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.7322/jhgd.157747

Keywords:

social exclusion, social inclusion, marginalization, primary healthcare, measurement tools, health inequalities

Abstract

Social exclusion is a concept that has been discussed and debated in many disciplines in recent decades. In 2006 the WHO Social Exclusion Knowledge Network published a report detailing their work explaining the relevance of social exclusion to the domain of health. As part of that work, the authors formulated a complex definition of social exclusion that has proven difficult to adapt or operationalize in healthcare settings. We looked at this WHO work, and at other published evidence, and decided that social exclusion is a concept that is worth measuring at the individual level in healthcare settings. We suggest that the primary healthcare space, in particular, is an ideal setting in which to do that measurement. We have examined existing social exclusion measurement tools, and scrutinised the approaches taken by their authors, and the various domains they measured. We now propose to develop and validate such a tool for use in primary healthcare settings.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

  • Patrick O’Donnell, University of Limerick

    Clinical Fellow in Social Inclusion, Graduate Entry Medical School

     

  • Khalifa Elmusharaf, University of Limerick

    Senior Lecturer in Public Health, Graduate Entry Medical School

     

References

1. Peace R. Social exclusion: A concept in need of definition? Social Policy J New Zealand. 2001;(16):17-36.

2. Piachaud D, Bennett F, Nazroo J, Popay J. Social inclusion and social mobility. 2009. [cited 2016 Dec 10] Available from: http://www.instituteofhealthequity.org/resources-reports/social-inclusion-and-social-mobility-task-group-report/task-group-9-social-inclusion-and-social-mobility-full.pdf

3. Popay J, Escorel S, Hernández M, Johnston H, Mathieson J, Rispel L. Understanding and tackling social exclusion. Final report to the WHO Commission on Social Determinants of Health from the Social Exclusion Knowledge Network. World Health Organization, 2008.

4. Department of Health. Inclusion Health: Improving Primary Care for Socially Excluded People. [cited 2016 May 12] Available from: http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/@ps/ documents/digitalasset/dh_114365.pdf.

5. van Bergen APL, Wolf JRLM, Badou M, Wilde-Schutten K, Ijzelenberg W, Schreurs H, et al. The association between social exclusion or inclusion and health in EU and OECD countries: a systematic review. Eur J Public Health. 2018;cky143. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/cky143

6. Aldridge RW, Story A, Hwang SW, Nordentoft M, Luchenski SA, Hartwell G, et al. Morbidity and mortality in homeless individuals, prisoners, sex workers, and individuals with substance use disorders in high-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2018;391(10117):241-50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31869-X

7. Luchenski S, Maguire N, Aldridge RW, Hayward A, Story A, Perri P, et al. What works in inclusion health: overview of effective interventions for marginalised and excluded populations. Lancet. 2018;391(10117):266-80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31959-1

8. Cabinet Office Social Exclusion Task Force & Department of Health. Inclusion Health Evidence Pack. 2010. [cited 2016 Sep 15] Available from: http:/www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/346574/inclusion-health-evidencepack.pdf.

9. Marmot M. Inclusion health: addressing the causes of the causes. Lancet. 2018;391(10117):186-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32848-9

10. Department of Health. Inclusion Health: Improving the way we meet the primary health care needs of the socially excluded. [cited 2016 May 15] Available from: http:/www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/346571/inclusion-health.pdf.

11. O’Donnell P, O’Donovan D, Elmusharaf K. Measuring social exclusion in healthcare settings: a scoping review. Int J Equity Health. 2018;17(1):15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-018-0732-1

12. Starfield B, Shi L, Macinko J. Contribution of primary care to health systems and health. Milbank Q. 2005;83(3):457-502. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0009.2005.00409.x

13. World Health Organization (WHO). The World Health Report 2008: Primary health care now more than ever. Geneva: WHO, 2009.

14. Elmusharaf K, Daboin BEG, Crocetta TB. Do we really know who are left behind and who are at risk of being left behind? J Hum Growth Dev. 2018; 28(3):218-22. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7322/jhgd.152135

Downloads

Published

2019-05-06

Issue

Vol. 29 No. 1 (2019)

Section

Artigos Originais

License

CODE OF CONDUCT FOR JOURNAL  PUBLISHERS

 

Publishers who are Committee on Publication Ethics members and who support COPE membership for journal editors should:

 

Publishers should:

 

  • Define the relationship between publisher, editor and other parties in a contract
  • Respect privacy (for example, for research participants, for authors, for peer reviewers)
  • Protect intellectual property and copyright
  • Foster editorial independence

 

Publishers should work with journal editors to:

 

  • Set journal policies appropriately and aim to meet those policies, particularly with respect to:

–         Editorial  independence

–         Research ethics, including confidentiality, consent, and the special requirements for human and animal research

–         Authorship

–         Transparency and integrity (for example, conflicts of interest, research funding, reporting standards

–         Peer review and the role of the editorial team beyond that of the journal editor

–         Appeals and complaints

  • Communicate journal policies (for example, to authors, readers, peer reviewers)
  • Review journal policies periodically, particularly with respect to new recommendations from the COPE
  • Code of Conduct for Editors and the COPE Best Practice Guidelines
  • Maintain the integrity of the academic record
  • Assist the parties (for example, institutions, grant funders, governing bodies) responsible for the investigation of suspected research and publication misconduct and, where possible, facilitate in the resolution of these cases
  • Publish corrections, clarifications, and retractions
  • Publish content on a timely basis