Abstract
Background There is an increasing focus on inequity in healthcare and health outcomes. Early awareness of potential sources of inequity in access to and outcomes from innovative health technologies can support system preparedness and allow implementation of mitigations.
They may also be used to improve research inclusion.
Objective To explore methods used to integrate equality and equity into horizon scanning for healthcare innovations, focusing on acceptability, polypharmacy, and multiple long-term conditions (MLTC).
Design A scoping review followed Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidelines to identify relevant methodologies for integrating equity into horizon scanning.
Data sources Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, ProQuest, and WHO Global Index Medicus up to May 24, 2024.
Eligibility criteria Studies were eligible if they presented methodologies for integrating equity and equality considerations into horizon scanning in health and care. Primary outcomes related to equity or equality, and secondary outcomes addressed acceptability, polypharmacy, and MLTC.
Data extraction and synthesis Data were extracted on study characteristics, equity frameworks, and the integration of equity-related factors, including socioeconomic status, gender, and geographic location. A narrative synthesis was used to present the findings.
Results Out of 951 records screened, three studies were included. The studies used varied horizon scanning methods, including scenario-building and foresight methodologies, and spanned multiple healthcare contexts such as precision oncology and complex paediatric care. Each study incorporated equity/equality by addressing the impact of emerging innovations on clinically vulnerable populations. Acceptability was found to be crucial for equitable implementation, particularly in precision oncology. However, managing complex health needs, especially in disadvantaged groups, is complicated by significant challenges such as polypharmacy and the presence of multiple long-term conditions.
Conclusions Limited evidence highlighted a lack of consistent approaches to integrating equity into horizon scanning. While methods such as stakeholder engagement and scenario analysis showed promise, further research is needed to refine frameworks that better detect early indicators of inequity in healthcare innovation.
Strengths
Followed a robust and transparent methodology using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidelines for scoping reviews.
Comprehensive search strategy developed in collaboration with an experienced information specialist, covering multiple databases without restrictions.
Dual independent screening and data extraction enhanced the reliability and consistency of the review process.
Limitations
Limited number of included studies and heterogeneity in methodologies and healthcare settings reduced the generalisability of findings.
No critical appraisal of the quality of included studies, as the review focused on identifying methodologies rather than assessing study quality.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study/project is funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) (NIHRIO/project reference HSRIC-2016-10009).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data availability statement
All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplemental information.
