Methods for considering equality and equity implications in horizon scanning for medicines and healthcare innovations: a scoping review

Review question

What methods have been used to consider implications for equality and equity, and the associated domains of acceptability, polypharmacy, and presence of MLTC, within horizon scanning?

Objectives

• To identify existing approaches for integrating equality and equity considerations into horizon scanning processes.

• To explore how acceptability, polypharmacy, and the presence of MLTC are addressed in the context of horizon scanning in relation to equality and equity.

Eligibility criteria

Studies were included if they explored methodologies for incorporating equality and equity considerations within horizon scanning in health and care. Specifically, studies that presented frameworks or methods for integrating these considerations into horizon scanning processes were selected, while those not focused on these areas were excluded. Eligible studies had to include data related to horizon scanning and its integration with equality and equity. Primary measures were those addressing equality or equity, while secondary measures included assessments of acceptability, polypharmacy, and MLTC within horizon scanning. Full details of the inclusion criteria are available in Table 1.

Search Strategy

The search strategy was designed in collaboration with an experienced information specialist (CE). The search was developed in MEDLINE (OVID). Elements of the equity grouping were taken directly from a paper by Hosking et al.,[13] which was located via the ISSG Search Filter Resource website.[14] This was then combined with additional relevant equity MeSH and key terms. The equity grouping was then combined with keyword terms for ‘horizon scanning’ and ‘foresight’. The final search strategy was peer-reviewed before being translated into Embase (OVID), ProQuest using the Social Science Premium Collection, and WHO’s Global Index Medicus. The searches were carried out from inception to 24 May 2024. No restrictions or limitations were imposed on the search. The search results were then combined and de-duplicated in EndNote. The full search strategies can be found in the Appendices 1 to 5.

Study selection

Upon completing the systematic search, all identified citations were collated and duplicates removed using Endnote 21’s duplicate detection feature.[15] Two reviewers (CO, TPK) screened the title, abstract and full text levels was conducted using Rayyan.[16] Prior to formal screening, a pilot test was performed by randomly selecting 10% of the articles to ensure consistency and clarity in the application of inclusion criteria among the two reviewers. Any conflicts arising during the screening stages were discussed until consensus was reached. When necessary, a third opinion from another author (GN) was sought to achieve consensus. A PRISMA flow diagram was used to document the number of studies identified, screened, included, and excluded, with reasons for exclusion at the full-text stage provided.

Data Extraction

Following the selection of studies, two reviewers (CO, TPK) piloted the data extraction form using one of the included studies to ensure the extraction of relevant information, and necessary modifications were made. Subsequently, the reviewers (CO, TPK) independently extracted the data on the remaining included studies and compiled the agreed extraction using Microsoft Excel. The extracted data included specific details of study characteristics (author, year, country), type of study, primary and secondary objectives, stages of horizon scanning, key technologies or interventions evaluated, equity and equality considerations, and any recommendations or implications for practice and policy. The scoping review adopted the PROGRESS-Plus framework to guide the exploration of equality and equity implications within horizon scanning processes.[17] PROGRESS plus factors include, Place of residence, Race/ethnicity/culture, Occupation, Gender/sex, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status, Social capital, Plus other characteristics (e.g., age, disability, sexual orientation).[17]

Data Analysis and presentation

The extracted data were synthesised using a narrative approach. The synthesis involved identifying patterns and themes across the studies regarding how equity and equality considerations were integrated into horizon scanning processes. Key themes, including the treatment of acceptability, polypharmacy, and MLTC, were identified, and mapped to the methods employed in horizon scanning. In addition, the synthesis examined how the studies operationalised the PROGRESS-Plus factors to address broader social determinants of health and ensure equity/inequity in the assessment of healthcare innovations.

Study selection

A systematic search across electronic databases identified 1,152 records. After the removal of 201 duplicates, 951 unique records remained and were advanced to the initial screening phase. Title and abstract screening led to the exclusion of 935 studies. Consequently, 16 studies were retained for a more detailed full-text evaluation. Thirteen studies were excluded with reasons at this stage (see Appendix 6). Ultimately, 3 studies,[18–20] were included in the review (Fig.1).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig 1. Flow diagram of included studies.

Characteristics of included studies

The included studies, published between 2019 and 2024, span multiple countries and offer heterogenous insights into healthcare innovations. Studies were conducted in multiple European countries as part of the EURO-HEALTHY project,[18] Belgium,[20] and Canada.[19] The study designs varied, with one study,[18] employing a socio-technical scenario-building approach, another,[20] using a foresight methodology, and the third

study,[19] conducting a horizon scan. These studies were situated in different healthcare contexts: The study by Alvarenga and colleagues,[18] focused on the broader European public health landscape, Schmitt and colleagues,[20] focused on the integration of precision oncology into routine cancer care in Belgium, and Jones and colleagues,[19] on the care of children and youth with medical complexity in Canada. The healthcare innovations discussed include the integration of medical technologies and innovations to address health inequalities,[18] precision medicine in oncology,[20] and emerging models of care, communication systems, and genetic testing for medically complex paediatric populations.[19] Descriptive information on each individual study is presented in Table 2.

Themes and Findings

Approaches for Integrating Equality and Equity Considerations into Horizon Scanning Processes

All three studies placed significant emphasis on integrating equity considerations into their respective horizon scanning processes, with specific details presented in Table 4. Alvarenga and colleagues,[18] incorporated equity by ensuring that the scenarios developed addressed how different political, economic, and social factors could influence health inequalities across Europe. The study highlighted the potential impact of these factors on various population groups, emphasising the need for policies that reduce disparities. Schmitt and colleagues,[20] focused on equity by assessing the contextual factors that could either facilitate or hinder the equitable implementation of precision medicine in Belgium. The study identified key economic and technological factors, such as dedicated healthcare budgets and data standardisation, as crucial for ensuring that precision oncology benefits are accessible to all segments of the population. Jones and colleagues,[19] addressed equity by prioritising technologies and issues that could reduce disparities in care for children and youth with medical complexity. The study emphasised the importance of equitable access to emerging healthcare innovations, particularly for populations in rural or underserved areas.

Acceptability, Polypharmacy, and MLTC

Acceptability, polypharmacy, and MLTC were variably addressed across the studies. Acceptability was a critical consideration in all three studies; detailed information is available in Table 5. Alvarenga and colleagues,[18] indirectly addressed acceptability through the exploration of public health policies’ success, influenced by their acceptance among different stakeholders. Schmitt and colleagues,[20] addressed acceptability in the context of precision oncology, emphasising the need for new technologies to be accepted by both patients and healthcare providers to ensure successful implementation. Jones and colleagues,[19] considered acceptability by focusing on the challenges faced by caregivers in adopting new healthcare technologies and ensuring that these innovations align with the needs and capacities of families.

Polypharmacy was particularly relevant in the studies by Schmitt and colleagues,[20] and Jones and colleagues.[19] Schmitt and colleagues,[20] discussed how precision medicine could reduce the risks associated with polypharmacy by tailoring treatments to individual genetic profiles, thereby minimising unnecessary drug use. Jones and colleagues,[19] addressed polypharmacy in the context of managing complex medication regimens for children with multiple health conditions, highlighting the role of emerging technologies in supporting effective medication management.

The presence of MLTC was a central theme in the studies by Schmitt and colleagues,[20] and Jones and colleagues.[19] While Schmitt and colleagues,[20] explored how precision medicine could be integrated into the care of patients with multiple health conditions, ensuring that comorbidities are managed alongside cancer treatments, Jones and colleagues,[19] emphasised the need for coordinated care models that address the complex comorbidities often present in children with medical complexity, advocating for technologies and care strategies that support holistic and integrated care.

Summary of Findings

Our review synthesised methods from three heterogenous studies, emphasising the importance of integrating equity/equality considerations in horizon scanning to efficiently address health disparities. The main methodological approaches common to all studies can be categorised into: Stakeholder engagement, Expert surveys, and Scenario analysis.

These were highlighted across all studies through the use focus groups, web-Delphi, priority- setting sessions, and workshops to identify and validate future-oriented evidence that explore and address complex health issues.[18–20] Overall, the included studies suggest that employing horizon scanning methods and foresight methodology approaches can help to identify potential key drivers affecting the gradual rise of healthcare inequalities/inequities.[5] These methods allow researchers and policymakers to evaluate the potential impacts of emerging technologies and healthcare practices on health inequalities/inequities using scenario-building to explore different structural contexts. These scenarios are often validated in expert workshop formats, reinforcing the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration and diverse stakeholder input. This process highlights the necessity of employing varied methodologies while integrating equity/equality considerations to address healthcare inequalities comprehensively.[20]

Despite the strengths of these methodologies, a significant gap remains in their ability to detect weak signals—subtle, early indicators of potential inequalities/inequities that may not yet be fully visible but could evolve into more significant drivers of disparities if not addressed.[21] These weak signals might include emerging trends in healthcare access, socio-economic shifts, or early-stage technological developments that disproportionately impact marginalised groups. They may also include signs of poor research inclusion of marginalised groups which could reduce the relevance, safety and effectiveness of novel technologies for people from these groups. Our review highlights the need for future horizon scanning methodologies to incorporate more sophisticated, equity/inequity-focused tools capable of capturing these early warning signals. This would enable a more proactive response to inequities/inequalities before they become entrenched, ensuring that healthcare innovations are accessible to all populations.[21]

Comparisons with Existing Literature

Our findings align with the broader literature on health equity/equality, which highlights the critical importance of integrating equity and/or equality considerations into healthcare innovation processes. The use of frameworks such as DESTEP in the study by Schmitt and colleagues,[20] reflects a systematic approach to evaluating the socio-economic, technological, and environmental factors that influence health disparities. This aligns with existing research advocating for the inclusion of equity in health assessments to prevent the widening of health inequalities.[5 ,17] The consideration of acceptability, polypharmacy, and MLTC within horizon scanning processes is crucial, given the complexities associated with managing chronic conditions and multiple medications in diverse and vulnerable populations. The acceptability of healthcare innovations to diverse populations is crucial, as failure to account for cultural, social, and economic factors may result in reduced uptake of interventions among marginalized groups, ultimately undermining their effectiveness.[7] Polypharmacy is a key indicator of inequity of access, as minoritised and disadvantaged groups are disproportionately likely to experience polypharmacy due to systemic barriers in healthcare.[8] These barriers often lead to fragmented care, increasing the risk of adverse drug events and poorer health outcomes.[8] By considering polypharmacy as a proxy for inequity, horizon scanning can help identify innovations that improve access to appropriate care and reduce the burden of managing multiple medications among clinically vulnerable populations.[8] This approach is consistent with the literature on the challenges of polypharmacy and the importance of personalised, patient-centred care strategies.[8 ,9] Equally important is the consideration of MLTC, which often correlates with higher healthcare needs and complexities, particularly among socially and economically disadvantaged populations.[22]

Implications for Practice and Policy

The findings from this review highlight the necessity of systematically incorporating equity and/or equality considerations into horizon scanning processes, utilising established frameworks such as PROGRESS-Plus,[17] or DESTEP,[20] to prevent the worsening of health inequalities/inequities. It is crucial for policymakers, researchers, and practitioners to engage diverse stakeholders, including patients and healthcare providers, to ensure that new technologies align with user needs and expectations, thereby enhancing their acceptability. Additionally, as the prevalence of chronic conditions and the associated challenges of polypharmacy and MLTC continue to rise, horizon scanning must rigorously evaluate how emerging technologies can effectively address these complex care needs, particularly in vulnerable populations and, conversely risks that these may be exacerbated by new technologies. This integrated approach will support the development of healthcare innovations that are not only effective but also equitably accessible across diverse groups.

Strengths and Limitations

This scoping review has several methodological strengths. The review followed a systematic approach, adhering to JBI guidelines, which ensured that relevant studies were identified.

The use of focused search strategies, combined with duplicate reviewer screening and data extraction, enhanced the rigour and transparency of the review process. Furthermore, the integration of the PROGRESS-Plus framework allowed for a structured exploration of equity considerations across diverse healthcare contexts.

However, the review also presents limitations. The small number of included studies and the heterogeneity in their methodologies and healthcare settings pose challenges for the generalisability of the findings. This diversity limited our ability to synthesise the results into broader, more cohesive conclusions. Additionally, while the studies used different horizon scanning methodologies, the variability in their design and context makes it difficult to draw definitive insights on the effectiveness of specific approaches to integrating equity into horizon scanning.

Future Research Directions

A gap identified in this review is the need for further empirical testing of horizon scanning methods to assess how well they can detect weak signals - subtle, early indicators of potential inequalities/inequities that may not yet be visible but could evolve into significant drivers of disparity.[21] Future research should aim to expand the evidence base on integrating equity and/or equality into horizon scanning by developing and validating more comprehensive frameworks tailored to this purpose. In addition, further investigation is needed into how horizon scanning processes can be adapted to better identify and address the challenges of polypharmacy and MLTC, especially in aging populations and those with complex health needs. Such research will be instrumental in refining horizon scanning methodologies to ensure that they support the development of equitable and effective healthcare systems globally.