Building upon the successes of Countdown to 2015, Countdown to 2030 aims to support the monitoring and measurement of women's, children's, and adolescents' health in the 81 countries that account for 95% of maternal and 90% of all child deaths worldwide. To achieve the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030, the rate of decline in prevalence of maternal and child mortality, stillbirths, and stunting among children younger than 5 years of age needs to accelerate considerably compared with progress since 2000. Such accelerations are only possible with a rapid scale-up of effective interventions to all population groups within countries (particularly in countries with the highest mortality and in those affected by conflict), supported by improvements in underlying socioeconomic conditions, including women's empowerment. Three main conclusions emerge from our analysis of intervention coverage, equity, and drivers of reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health (RMNCH) in the 81 Countdown countries. First, even though strong progress was made in the coverage of many essential RMNCH interventions during the past decade, many countries are still a long way from universal coverage for most essential interventions. Furthermore, a growing body of evidence suggests that available services in many countries are of poor quality, limiting the potential effect on RMNCH outcomes. Second, within-country inequalities in intervention coverage are reducing in most countries (and are now almost non-existent in a few countries), but the pace is too slow. Third, health-sector (eg, weak country health systems) and non-health-sector drivers (eg, conflict settings) are major impediments to delivering high-quality services to all populations. Although more data for RMNCH interventions are available now, major data gaps still preclude the use of evidence to drive decision making and accountability. Countdown to 2030 is investing in improvements in measurement in several areas, such as quality of care and effective coverage, nutrition programmes, adolescent health, early childhood development, and evidence for conflict settings, and is prioritising its regional networks to enhance local analytic capacity and evidence for RMNCH.

SummaryBackgroundLatin American and Caribbean populations include three main ethnic groups: indigenous people, people of African descent, and people of European descent. We investigated ethnic inequalities among these groups in population coverage with reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health interventions.MethodsWe analysed 16 standardised, nationally representative surveys carried out from 2004 to 2015 in Latin America and the Caribbean that provided information on ethnicity or a proxy indicator (household language or skin colour) and on coverage of reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health interventions. We selected four outcomes: coverage with modern contraception, antenatal care coverage (defined as four or more antenatal visits), and skilled attendants at birth for women aged 15–49 years; and coverage with three doses of diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus (DPT3) vaccine among children aged 12–23 months. We classified women and children as indigenous, of African descent, or other ancestry (reference group) on the basis of their self-reported ethnicity or language. Mediating variables included wealth quintiles (based on household asset indices), woman's education, and urban-rural residence. We calculated crude and adjusted coverage ratios using Poisson regression.FindingsEthnic gaps in coverage varied substantially from country to country. In most countries, coverage with modern contraception (median coverage ratio 0·82, IQR 0·66–0·92), antenatal care (0·86, 0·75–0·94), and skilled birth attendants (0·75, 0·68–0·92) was lower among indigenous women than in the reference group. Only three countries (Nicaragua, Panama, and Paraguay) showed significant gaps in DPT3 coverage between the indigenous and the reference groups. The differences were attenuated but persisted after adjustment for wealth, education, and residence. Women and children of African descent showed similar coverage to the reference group in most countries.InterpretationThe lower coverage levels for indigenous women are pervasive, and cannot be explained solely by differences in wealth, education, or residence. Interventions delivered at community level—such as vaccines—show less inequality than those requiring access to services, such as birth attendance. Regular monitoring of ethnic inequalities is essential to evaluate existing initiatives aimed at the inclusion of minorities and to plan effective multisectoral policies and programmes.FundingThe Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (through the Countdown to 2030 initiative) and the Wellcome Trust.

Measuring health inequalities is indispensable for progress in improving the health situation in the Region of the Americas, where the analysis of average values is no longer sufficient. Analyzing health inequalities is a fundamental tool for action that seeks greater equity in health. There are various measurement methods, with differing levels of complexity, and choosing one rather than another depends on the objective of the study. The purpose of this article is to familiarize health professionals and decision-making institutions with methodological aspects of the measurement and simple analysis of health inequalities, utilizing basic data that are regularly reported by geopolitical unit. The calculation method and the advantages and disadvantages of the following indicators are presented: the rate ratio and the rate difference, the effect index, the population attributable risk, the index of dissimilarity, the slope index of inequality and the relative index of inequality, the Gini coefficient, and the concentration index. The methods presented are applicable to measuring various types of inequalities and at different levels of analysis.

Background The World Health Assembly 2018 approved a resolution on rheumatic heart disease to strengthen programmes in countries where this condition remains a substantial public health problem. We aimed to describe the regional burden, trends, and inequalities of rheumatic heart disease in the Americas. MethodsIn this secondary analysis of the Global Burden of Disease, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2017, we extracted data for deaths, prevalence of cases, disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), years lived with disability, and years of life lost (YLL) as measures of rheumatic heart disease burden using the GBD Results Tool. We analysed 1990-2017 trends in rheumatic heart disease mortality and prevalence, quantified cross-country inequalities in rheumatic heart disease mortality, and classified countries according to rheumatic heart disease mortality in 2017 and 1990-2017.Findings GBD 2017 estimated that 3 604 800 cases of rheumatic heart disease occurred overall in the Americas in 2017, with 22 437 deaths. We showed that in 2017 rheumatic heart disease mortality in the Americas was 51% (95% UI 44-59) lower (1•8 deaths per 100 000 population [95% uncertainty interval 1•7-1•9] vs 3•7 deaths per 100 000 population [3•4-3•9]) and prevalence was 30% (29-33) lower (346•4 cases per 100 000 [334•1-359•2] vs 500•6 cases per 100 000 [482•9-519•7]) than the corresponding global estimates. DALYs were half of those globally (55•7 per 100 000 [49•8-63•5] vs 118•7 per 100 000 [108•5 to 130•7]), with a 70% contribution from YLL (39•1 out of 55•7 per 100 000). A significant reduction in rheumatic heart disease mortality occurred, from a regional average of 88•4 YLL per 100 000 (95% uncertainty interval 88•2-88•6) in 1990 to 38•2 (38•1-38•4) in 2017, and a significant reduction in income-related inequality, from an excess of 191•7 YLL per 100 000 (68•6-314•8) between the poorest and richest countries in 1990 to 66•8 YLL per 100 000 (6•4-127•2) in 2017. Of the 37 countries studied, eight (22%) had both the highest level of premature rheumatic heart disease mortality in 2017 and the smallest reduction in this mortality between 1990 and 2017.Interpretation The Americas have greatly reduced premature mortality due to rheumatic heart disease since 1990. These health gains were paired with a substantial reduction in the magnitude of income-related inequalities across countries, which is consistent with overall socioeconomic and health improvements observed in the Region. Countries with less favourable rheumatic heart disease situations should be targeted for strengthening of their national programmes.

RESUMEN La equidad en salud es un principio rector de la acción en salud pública –cuyo noble propósito es construir sociedades más saludables y sostenibles y, al mismo tiempo, más justas e inclusivas. Ello se refleja en el compromiso mundial por ‘no dejar a nadie atrás’ que preside la Agenda 2030 para el desarrollo sostenible, aunque en ninguna de sus 169 metas se establezca ni conceptual ni cuantitativamente la reducción de desigualdades en salud. Reconociendo la urgencia de trascender la retórica y avanzar consecuentemente en la formulación y puesta en marcha de políticas sociales y de salud pro-equitativas –de lo local a lo global–, en este informe especial se revisan las bases conceptuales y metodológicas para el abordaje de la equidad en salud, se vinculan explícitamente en una propuesta instrumental y práctica que promueve el uso analítico de los datos administrativos disponibles desagregados subnacionalmente para informar la toma de decisiones en esa dirección, y se concluye planteando la necesidad de institucionalizar la medición, análisis y monitoreo de las desigualdades sociales en salud para crear efectivamente capacidades nacionales para actuar sobre los determinantes sociales y ambientales de la salud y rendir cuentas sobre el compromiso de no dejar a nadie atrás en el camino hacia el desarrollo sostenible, la salud universal y la justicia social.