ObjectiveTo provide an update on economic related inequalities in caesarean section rates within countries.DesignSecondary analysis of demographic and health surveys and multiple indicator cluster surveys.Setting72 low and middle income countries with a survey conducted between 2010 and 2014 for analysis of the latest situation of inequality, and 28 countries with a survey also conducted between 2000 and 2004 for analysis of the change in inequality over time.ParticipantsWomen aged 15-49 years with a live birth during the two or three years preceding the survey.Main outcome measuresData on caesarean section were disaggregated by asset based household wealth status and presented separately for five subgroups, ranging from the poorest to the richest fifth. Absolute and relative inequalities were measured using difference and ratio measures. The pace of change in the poorest and richest fifths was compared using a measure of excess change.ResultsNational caesarean section rates ranged from 0.6% in South Sudan to 58.9% in the Dominican Republic. Within countries, caesarean section rates were lowest in the poorest fifth (median 3.7%) and highest in the richest fifth (median 18.4%). 18 out of 72 study countries reported a difference of 20 percentage points or higher between the richest and poorest fifth. The highest caesarean section rates and greatest levels of absolute inequality were observed in countries from the region of the Americas, whereas countries from the African region had low levels of caesarean use and comparatively lower levels of absolute inequality, although relative inequality was quite high in some countries. 26 out of 28 countries reported increases in caesarean section rates over time. Rates tended to increase faster in the richest fifth (median 0.9 percentage points per year) compared with the poorest fifth (median 0.2 percentage points per year), indicating an increase in inequality over time in most of these countries.ConclusionsSubstantial within country economic inequalities in caesarean deliveries remain. These inequalities might be due to a combination of inadequate access to emergency obstetric care among the poorest subgroups and high levels of caesarean use without medical indication in the richest subgroups, especially in middle income countries. Country specific strategies should address these inequalities to improve maternal and newborn health.

As part of the Universal Health Coverage Collection, Ahmad Reza Hosseinpoor and colleagues discuss methodological considerations for equity-oriented monitoring of universal health coverage, and propose recommendations for monitoring and target setting.

BackgroundHealth equity is a priority in the post-2015 sustainable development agenda and other major health initiatives. The World Health Organization (WHO) has a history of promoting actions to achieve equity in health, including efforts to encourage the practice of health inequality monitoring. Health inequality monitoring systems use disaggregated data to identify disadvantaged subgroups within populations and inform equity-oriented health policies, programs, and practices.ObjectiveThis paper provides an overview of a number of recent and current WHO initiatives related to health inequality monitoring at the global and/or national level.DesignWe outline the scope, content, and intended uses/application of the following: Health Equity Monitor database and theme page; State of inequality: reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health report; Handbook on health inequality monitoring: with a focus on low- and middle-income countries; Health inequality monitoring eLearning module; Monitoring health inequality: an essential step for achieving health equity advocacy booklet and accompanying video series; and capacity building workshops conducted in WHO Member States and Regions.ConclusionsThe paper concludes by considering how the work of the WHO can be expanded upon to promote the establishment of sustainable and robust inequality monitoring systems across a variety of health topics among Member States and at the global level.

BackgroundIt is widely recognised that the pursuit of sustainable development cannot be accomplished without addressing inequality, or observed differences between subgroups of a population. Monitoring health inequalities allows for the identification of health topics where major group differences exist, dimensions of inequality that must be prioritised to effect improvements in multiple health domains, and also population subgroups that are multiply disadvantaged. While availability of data to monitor health inequalities is gradually improving, there is a commensurate need to increase, within countries, the technical capacity for analysis of these data and interpretation of results for decision-making. Prior efforts to build capacity have yielded demand for a toolkit with the computational ability to display disaggregated data and summary measures of inequality in an interactive and customisable fashion that would facilitate interpretation and reporting of health inequality in a given country.MethodsTo answer this demand, the Health Equity Assessment Toolkit (HEAT), was developed between 2014 and 2016. The software, which contains the World Health Organization’s Health Equity Monitor database, allows the assessment of inequalities within a country using over 30 reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health indicators and five dimensions of inequality (economic status, education, place of residence, subnational region and child’s sex, where applicable).Results/ConclusionHEAT was beta-tested in 2015 as part of ongoing capacity building workshops on health inequality monitoring. This is the first and only application of its kind; further developments are proposed to introduce an upload data feature, translate it into different languages and increase interactivity of the software. This article will present the main features and functionalities of HEAT and discuss its relevance and use for health inequality monitoring.

SummaryBackgroundImmunisation programmes have made substantial contributions to lowering the burden of disease in children, but there is a growing need to ensure that programmes are equity-oriented. We aimed to provide a detailed update about the state of between-country inequality and within-country economic-related inequality in the delivery of three doses of the combined diphtheria, tetanus toxoid, and pertussis-containing vaccine (DTP3), with a special focus on inequalities in high-priority countries.MethodsWe used data from the latest available Demographic and Health Surveys and Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys done in 51 low-income and middle-income countries. Data for DTP3 coverage were disaggregated by wealth quintile, and inequality was calculated as difference and ratio measures based on coverage in richest (quintile 5) and poorest (quintile 1) household wealth quintiles. Excess change was calculated for 21 countries with data available at two timepoints spanning a 10 year period. Further analyses were done for six high-priority countries—ie, those with low national immunisation coverage and/or high absolute numbers of unvaccinated children. Significance was determined using 95% CIs.FindingsNational DTP3 immunisation coverage across the 51 study countries ranged from 32% in Central African Republic to 98% in Jordan. Within countries, the gap in DTP3 immunisation coverage suggested pro-rich inequality, with a difference of 20 percentage points or more between quintiles 1 and 5 for 20 of 51 countries. In Nigeria, Pakistan, Laos, Cameroon, and Central African Republic, the difference between quintiles 1 and 5 exceeded 40 percentage points. In 15 of 21 study countries, an increase over time in national coverage of DTP3 immunisation was realised alongside faster improvements in the poorest quintile than the richest. For example, in Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Gabon, Mali, and Nepal, the absolute increase in coverage was at least 2·0 percentage points per year, with faster improvement in the poorest quintile. Substantial economic-related inequality in DTP3 immunisation coverage was reported in five high-priority study countries (DR Congo, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Pakistan), but not Uganda.InterpretationOverall, within-country inequalities in DTP3 immunisation persist, but seem to have narrowed over the past 10 years. Monitoring economic-related inequalities in immunisation coverage is warranted to reveal where gaps exist and inform appropriate approaches to reach disadvantaged populations.FundingNone.