Measuring global health inequity.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Notions of equity are fundamental to, and drive much of the current thinking about global health. Health inequity, however, is usually measured using health inequality as a proxy - implicitly conflating equity and equality. Unfortunately measures of global health inequality do not take account of the health inequity associated with the additional, and unfair, encumbrances that poor health status confers on economically deprived populations.Method
Using global health data from the World Health Organization's 14 mortality sub-regions, a measure of global health inequality (based on a decomposition of the Pietra Ratio) is contrasted with a new measure of global health inequity. The inequity measure weights the inequality data by regional economic capacity (GNP per capita).Results
The least healthy global sub-region is shown to be around four times worse off under a health inequity analysis than would be revealed under a straight health inequality analysis. In contrast the healthiest sub-region is shown to be about four times better off. The inequity of poor health experienced by poorer regions around the world is significantly worse than a simple analysis of health inequality reveals.Conclusion
By measuring the inequity and not simply the inequality, the magnitude of the disparity can be factored into future economic and health policy decision making.
SUBMITTER: Reidpath DD
PROVIDER: S-EPMC2147004 | biostudies-literature | 2007 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Measuring global health inequity.
Reidpath Daniel D DD Allotey Pascale P
International journal for equity in health 20071030
<h4>Background</h4>Notions of equity are fundamental to, and drive much of the current thinking about global health. Health inequity, however, is usually measured using health inequality as a proxy - implicitly conflating equity and equality. Unfortunately measures of global health inequality do not take account of the health inequity associated with the additional, and unfair, encumbrances that poor health status confers on economically deprived populations.<h4>Method</h4>Using global health da ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:PurposeAlthough radiation therapy (RT) is an effective and inexpensive pillar of multidisciplinary cancer care, access to RT facilities remains highly inequitable globally. Numerous studies have documented this resource gap, yet many countries continue facing their raging cancer epidemics ill-equipped. In this study, we present an estimation of resource deficits in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) without any RT facilities at all.Methods and materialsThis study builds on publicly available data on country classification, population, cancer incidence, and RT requirements provided by the World Bank Group, the World Health Organization, and the International Atomic Energy Agency. Leveraging these data, we developed a capacity-planning model to estimate the current deficit of fundamental RT resources for LMICs with more than 1 million inhabitants and no active RT facilities.ResultsThere were 23 LMICs with a population of more than 1 million inhabitants and without any active RT facilities, 78% of which were located in sub-Saharan Africa. The aggregate population of these countries was 197.3 million people. The largest countries without RT facilities were Afghanistan and Malawi, with a population of 38.0 million and 18.6 million inhabitants, respectively. Estimated cancer incidence for all countries under study totaled at 134,783 new cases per year, 84,239 (62.5%) of which would have required RT. There was an aggregate deficit of 188 megavoltage machines and 85 brachytherapy afterloaders, along with simulation equipment and human capital in the magnitude of approximately 3363 trained radiation oncology staff.ConclusionsHundreds of thousands of patients with cancer in LMICs continue to live in countries without access to RT in their own country. This extreme form of global health inequity requires urgent and decisive action, the success of which depends on the integration of international and local efforts.
| S-EPMC10050474 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHealth and care workers (HCWs) are at the forefront of COVID-19 response, at high risk of infection, and as a result they are a priority group for COVID-19 vaccination. This paper presents the global patterns in COVID-19 vaccination coverage among HCWs in 2021, how HCWs were prioritized, and identifies factors associated with the early vaccination coverage.MethodsUsing monthly data reported to the World Health Organization, the percentages of partially and fully vaccinated HCWs were computed. The rates of vaccination of HCWs for the first and second half of 2021 were compared in a stratified analysis using several factors. A multivariate analysis was used to investigate the independent associations of these factors with the percentage of HCWs fully vaccinated.ResultsBased on data from 139 Member States, as of end of 2021, 82% HCWs were reported as fully vaccinated with important variations by income groups: 33% for low income countries, 83% for lower-middle income countries, 79% for upper-middle income countries and 88% for high income countries. Overall 76% of countries did not achieve 70% vaccination coverage of their HCWs in the first half of 2021, and 38% of countries by end of 2021. Compared with the general population, the rate of HCWs full vaccination was 3.5 times higher, in particular for low income countries (RR = 5.9). Stratified analysis showed that beyond income group, the availability of vaccine doses was a critical factor of HCWs vaccination coverage with medians of 59.1% and 88.6% coverage in the first and second half of 2021, respectively for countries with enough doses to cover 70% of their population, compared with 0.8% and 47.5% coverage, respectively for countries with doses to cover 40% of their population. The multivariate analysis confirmed this observation with a 35.9% overall difference (95%CI 15.1%; 56.9%) between these two groups.ConclusionDespite being considered a priority group, more than a third of countries did not achieve 70% vaccination coverage of their HCWs at the end of 2021. Large inequities were observed with low income countries lagging behind. Additional efforts should be dedicated to ensure full protection of HCWs through vaccination.
| S-EPMC9615614 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveAssessing general ("global") health is important to clinicians caring for patients, researchers studying patient subgroups, and epidemiologists tracking population trends. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS®) introduced an adult self-report Global Health measure (ages 18+) in 2009 and pediatric versions (ages 5-17 years) in 2014. Our aim was to extend global health assessment to 1-5-year olds.MethodsWe used the PROMIS mixed-methods approach to develop PROMIS Early Childhood (EC) Global Health, emphasizing qualitative measure development guidance utilizing input from experts and parents. Quantitatively, we conducted two data collection waves with parents of 1-5-year olds and applied state-of-the-science measure development methods, including exploratory, confirmatory, and bi-factor analytics, particularly regarding potentially multi-dimensional Global Health item content. We conducted a series of hypothesis-based across-domain association analyses, which were more exploratory in nature, and known-groups validity analyses.ResultsExperts emphasized the physical, mental, and social facets of global health, and parents described the broader, overarching construct. Using Waves 1 (N = 1,400) and 2 (N = 1,057) data, we retained six items directly sourced from the age 5-17 version and two new items. The resulting 8-item PROMIS EC Global Health was sufficiently unidimensional, so we fit item responses to the graded response model for parameter estimation. This produced an 8-item scale with one total score. Across-domain associations and known-groups validity analyses largely supported our hypotheses.ConclusionsWe achieved our aim to extend global health assessment to 1-5-year olds and to thereby expand the range of PROMIS life course global health assessment from children aged 1-17 years, to adults of all ages.
| S-EPMC9113277 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAccording to the last census, Morocco has a population approaching 30 million people. The country has made good progress in the control of preventable childhood diseases but social inequalities and health inequities remain major problems for the third millennium. Despite the progress achieved during the last decade, the country still ranks at the 125th place according to the Human Development Index. This unpleasant position is mainly explained by illiteracy, education and health indicators.MethodOur study was based mainly on annual reports and regular publications released by the United Nations (UN), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), World Health Organisation (WHO), The Moroccan Health Ministry and related papers published in international journals.Results and discussionAs indicated by the last Arab Human Development Reports (AHDR 2002, AHDR 2003, AHDR 2004) and implicitly confirmed by the "National Initiative for Human Development" (NIHD) launched in May 2005 by the King of Morocco, many districts and shanty towns, urban or peri-urban, and a multitude of rural communes live in situations characterized by difficult access to basic social services of which education and health are examples.ConclusionRecent evidence showed that improved health is more than a consequence of development. It is a central input into economic and social development and poverty reduction. Serious initiatives for human development should consider the reduction of social inequalities and health inequities as a first priority. Otherwise, the eventual development achieved cannot be sustained.
| S-EPMC1420301 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn 2021, donor countries, the pharmaceutical industry, and the COVAX initiative promoted vaccine donation or "dose-sharing" as a main solution to the inequitable global distribution of Covid-19 vaccines. COVAX positioned itself as a global vaccine-sharing hub that promised to share doses "equitably, effectively and transparently," according to rational criteria overseen by independent scientists. This article provides a critical analysis of the principles and practice of "dose-sharing," showing how it reveals the politics at play within COVAX.ResultsDonated doses were an important source of COVAX's vaccine supply in 2021, accounting for 60% of the doses the initiative delivered (543 million out of 910 million). However, donations could not compensate fully for COVAX's persistent procurement struggles: it delivered less than half of the two billion doses it originally projected for 2021, a fraction of the 9.25 billion doses that were administered globally in 2021. Donor countries and vaccine manufacturers systematically broke COVAX's principles for maximizing the impact of dose-sharing, delivering doses late, in smaller quantities than promised, and in ad hoc ways that made roll-out in recipient countries difficult. Some donors even earmarked doses for specific recipients, complicating and potentially undermining COVAX's equitable allocation mechanism.ConclusionsCOVAX's pivot from global vaccine procurement mechanism to dose-sharing hub can be seen as a "win-win-win" solution for COVAX itself (who could claim success by having access to more doses), for donor countries (who could rebrand themselves as charitable donors rather than "vaccine hoarders"), and for the pharmaceutical industry (maintaining the status quo on intellectual property rights and protecting their commercial interests). Although dose-sharing helped COVAX's vaccine delivery, its impact was undermined by donors' and industry's pursuit of national security, diplomatic and commercial interests, which COVAX largely accommodated. The lack of transparency and accountability mechanisms within COVAX's overly complex governance structure as a global public-private partnership enabled these practices.
| S-EPMC8897760 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSince the 2014-2016 West Africa Ebola epidemic, the concept of measuring health security capacity has become increasingly important within the broader context of health systems-strengthening, enhancing responses to public health emergencies, and reducing global catastrophic biological risks. Efforts to regularly and sustainably track the evolution of health security capabilities and capacities over time - while also accounting for political, social, and environmental risks - could help countries progress toward eliminating sources of health insecurity. We sought to aggregate evidence-based principles that capture a country's baseline public health and healthcare capabilities, its health security system performance before and during infectious disease crises, and its broader social, political, security, and ecological risk environments.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review of English-language scholarly and gray literature to identify evidence- and practice-based indicators and proxies for measuring health security at the country level over time. We then used a qualitative coding framework to identify recurrent themes in the literature and synthesize foundational principles for measuring global health security. Documents reviewed included English-language literature published after 2001 until the end of the research period-September 2017-to ensure relevance to the current global health security landscape; literature examining acute infectious disease threats with potential for transnational spread; and literature addressing global health security efforts at the country level.ResultsWe synthesized four foundational principles for measuring global health security: measurement requires assessment of existing capacities, as well as efforts to build core public health, healthcare, and biosecurity capabilities; assessments of national programs and efforts to mitigate a critical subset of priority threats could inform efforts to generate useful metrics for global health security; there are measurable enabling factors facilitating health security-strengthening efforts; and finally, measurement requires consideration of social, political, and ecological risk environments.ConclusionThe themes identified in this review could inform efforts to systematically assess the impacts and effectiveness of activities undertaken to strengthen global health security.
| S-EPMC6637489 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMonitoring financial protection against catastrophic health expenditures is important to understand how health financing arrangements in a country protect its population against high costs associated with accessing health services. While catastrophic health expenditures are generally defined to be when household expenditures for health exceed a given threshold of household resources, there is no gold standard with several methods applied to define the threshold and household resources. These different approaches to constructing the indicator might give different pictures of a country's progress towards financial protection. In order for monitoring to effectively provide policy insight, it is critical to understand the sensitivity of measurement to these choices.MethodsThis paper examines the impact of varying two methodological choices by analysing household expenditure data from a sample of 47 countries. We assess sensitivity of cross-country comparisons to a range of thresholds by testing for restricted dominance. We further assess sensitivity of comparisons to different methods for defining household resources (i.e. total expenditure, non-food expenditure and non-subsistence expenditure) by conducting correlation tests of country rankings.ResultsWe found country rankings are robust to the choice of threshold in a tenth to a quarter of comparisons within the 5-85% threshold range and this increases to half of comparisons if the threshold is restricted to 5-40%, following those commonly used in the literature. Furthermore, correlations of country rankings using different methods to define household resources were moderate to high; thus, this choice makes less difference from a measurement perspective than from an ethical perspective as different definitions of available household resources reflect varying concerns for equity.ConclusionsInterpreting comparisons from global monitoring based on a single threshold should be done with caution as these may not provide reliable insight into relative country progress. We therefore recommend financial protection against catastrophic health expenditures be measured across a range of thresholds using a catastrophic incidence curve as shown in this paper. We further recommend evaluating financial protection in relation to a country's health financing system arrangements in order to better understand the extent of protection and better inform future policy changes.
| S-EPMC5984475 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Since the pandemic began in December 2019, SARS-Cov2 has accentuated the wide gap and disparities in socioeconomic and healthcare access at individual, community, country, and regional levels. More than two years into the current pandemic, up to three-fourths of the patients are reporting continued signs and symptoms beyond the acute phase of COVID-19, and Long COVID portends to be a major challenge in the future ahead. With a comprehensive overview of the literature, we found that most studies concerning long COVID came from high and upper-middle income countries, and people of low-income and lower-and-middle income regions and vulnerable groups with comorbid conditions have been neglected. Apart from the level of income, there is a significant geographical heterogeneity in investigating the Post-Acute Sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC) or what we call now, long COVID. We believe that these recognizing health disparities is crucial from equity perspective and is the first step toward global health promotion.
| S-EPMC10076956 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTo date, efforts to measure impact have largely focused on health research in high-income countries, reflecting where the majority of health research funding is spent. Nevertheless, there is a growing body of health and medical research being undertaken in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), supported by both development aid and established research funders. The Framework to Assess the Impact of Translational health research (FAIT) combines three approaches to measuring research impact (Payback, economic assessment and case study narrative). Its aim is to strengthen the focus on translation and impact measurement in health research. FAIT has been used by several Australian research initiatives; however, it has not been used in LMICs. Our aim was to apply FAIT in an LMIC context and evaluate its utility.MethodsWe retrospectively applied all three FAIT methods to two LMIC studies using available data, supplemented with group discussion and further economic analyses. Results were presented in a scorecard format.ResultsFAIT helped clarify pathways of impact for the projects and provided new knowledge on areas of impact in several domains, including capacity-building for research, policy development and economic impact. However, there were constraints, particularly associated with calculating the return on investment in the LMIC context. The case study narrative provided a layperson's summary of the research that helped to explain outcomes and succinctly communicate lessons learnt.ConclusionUse of FAIT to assess the impact of LMIC research was both feasible and useful. We make recommendations related to prospective use, identification of metrics to support use of the Payback framework, and simplification of the economic assessment, which may facilitate further application in LMIC environments.
| S-EPMC6501392 | biostudies-literature
Project description:As the supply of COVID-19 vaccines to low-income countries (LICs) remains limited, governments of high-income countries face a trade-off between domestic containment through booster shots and global containment by helping LICs acquire first doses ("vaccine nationalism" vs "vaccine internationalism"). We provide empirical evidence on how residents of a high-income country view this ethical dilemma by surveying 1527 UK adults recruited online. Support for vaccine donations to LICs is high. On average, study participants chose to donate 65% of UK's COVID-19 vaccines, which were ordered for booster shots, to LICs. Holding all other factors constant, women, younger individuals, and those who are not fully vaccinated preferred to donate a larger percentage to LICs. The UK public's preferences for prioritizing vaccine donations over booster shot programs suggest broad support for national policies that strike a balance between domestic containment and global philanthropy.
| S-EPMC8920110 | biostudies-literature