Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Public health researchers employ quasi-experimental methods (QEM) to evaluate the effects of policies. Whilst some policies are designed to improve (health) equity, others may intentionally or unintentionally have detrimental effects on disadvantaged populations. We thus sought to investigate how health equity is addressed in policy evaluations which employ QEM. We conducted a content analysis on studies sourced from a scoping review. We drew a random sample of 350 records identified in systematic database searches in Medline, EMBASE, and EconLit (December 2022). Studies that employed QEM labels and examined public policies implemented in the WHO European region were included. We extracted data on study design, policies, and populations; assessed whether outcomes were examined in population sub-groups (as defined by PROGRESS-Plus criteria); and analysed discussion sections for equity-related conclusions. We included 59 studies, of which 39 (66.1%) studies considered health equity—albeit to variable depth. Twenty-five studies were focused exclusively on examining policy outcomes in a disadvantaged population (42.4%), of which 19 studies evaluated policies that targeted disadvantaged groups (e.g. minimum wage, social housing policies). Outcomes were stratified for one or more sub-populations in 22 studies (37.3%), most commonly for gender (n = 15, 25.4%) and a measure of socio-economic status (n = 13, 22%), particularly income and employment. Equity-related results and implications were discussed in 24 studies. While policy evaluations employing QEM have considerable value for informing decision-making in public health and other sectors that influence health, their potential to investigate equity impacts is currently not harnessed.
Public health researchers employ quasi-experimental methods (QEM) to evaluate the effects of policies. Whilst some policies are designed to improve (health) equity, others may intentionally or unintentionally have detrimental effects on disadvantaged populations. We thus sought to investigate how health equity is addressed in policy evaluations which employ QEM. We conducted a content analysis on studies sourced from a scoping review. We drew a random sample of 350 records identified in systematic database searches in Medline, EMBASE, and EconLit (December 2022). Studies that employed QEM labels and examined public policies implemented in the WHO European region were included. We extracted data on study design, policies, and populations; assessed whether outcomes were examined in population sub-groups (as defined by PROGRESS-Plus criteria); and analysed discussion sections for equity-related conclusions. We included 59 studies, of which 39 (66.1%) studies considered health equity—albeit to variable depth. Twenty-five studies were focused exclusively on examining policy outcomes in a disadvantaged population (42.4%), of which 19 studies evaluated policies that targeted disadvantaged groups (e.g. minimum wage, social housing policies). Outcomes were stratified for one or more sub-populations in 22 studies (37.3%), most commonly for gender (n = 15, 25.4%) and a measure of socio-economic status (n = 13, 22%), particularly income and employment. Equity-related results and implications were discussed in 24 studies. While policy evaluations employing QEM have considerable value for informing decision-making in public health and other sectors that influence health, their potential to investigate equity impacts is currently not harnessed.
The “Leave No One Behind” (LNOB) principle, a fundamental commitment of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, emphasizes the urgent need to address and reduce global health inequalities. As global health initiatives strive to uphold this principle, they face significant ethical challenges in balancing equity, resource allocation, and diverse health priorities. This narrative review critically examines these ethical dilemmas and their implications for translating LNOB into actionable global health strategies. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Semantic Scholar, covering publications from January 1990 to April 2024. The review included peer-reviewed articles, gray literature, and official reports that addressed the ethical dimensions of LNOB in global health contexts. A thematic analysis was employed to identify and synthesize recurring ethical issues, dilemmas, and proposed solutions. The thematic analysis identified 4 primary ethical tensions that complicate the operationalization of LNOB: (1) Universalism versus Targeting, where the challenge lies in balancing broad health improvements with targeted interventions for the most disadvantaged; (2) Resource Scarcity versus Equity; highlighting the ethical conflicts between maximizing efficiency and ensuring fairness; (3) Top-down versus Bottom-up Approaches, reflecting the tension between externally driven initiatives and local community needs; and (4) Short-term versus Long-term Sustainability, addressing the balance between immediate health interventions and sustainable systemic changes. To navigate these ethical challenges effectively, global health strategies must adopt a nuanced, context-sensitive approach incorporating structured decision-making processes and authentic community participation. The review advocates for systemic reforms that address the root causes of health disparities, promote equitable collaboration between health practitioners and marginalized communities, and align global health interventions with ethical imperatives. Such an approach is essential to truly operationalize the LNOB principle and foster sustainable health equity.
In this study, we evaluated and forecasted the cumulative opportunities for residents to access radiotherapy services in Cali, Colombia, while accounting for traffic congestion, using a new people-centred methodology with an equity focus. Furthermore, we identified 1–2 optimal locations where new services would maximise accessibility. We utilised open data and publicly available big data. Cali is one of South America's cities most impacted by traffic congestion.Methodology: Using a people-centred approach, we tested a web-based digital platform developed through an iterative participatory design. The platform integrates open data, including the location of radiotherapy services, the disaggregated sociodemographic microdata for the population and places of residence, and big data for travel times from Google Distance Matrix API. We used genetic algorithms to identify optimal locations for new services. We predicted accessibility cumulative opportunities (ACO) for traffic ranging from peak congestion to free-flow conditions with hourly assessments for 6–12 July 2020 and 23–29 November 2020. The interactive digital platform is openly available.Primary and secondary outcomes: We present descriptive statistics and population distribution heatmaps based on 20-min accessibility cumulative opportunities (ACO) isochrones for car journeys. There is no set national or international standard for these travel time thresholds. Most key informants found the 20-min threshold reasonable. These isochrones connect the population-weighted centroid of the traffic analysis zone at the place of residence to the corresponding zone of the radiotherapy service with the shortest travel time under varying traffic conditions ranging from free-flow to peak-traffic congestion levels. Additionally, we conducted a time-series bivariate analysis to assess geographical accessibility based on economic stratum. We identify 1–2 optimal locations where new services would maximize the 20-min ACO during peak-traffic congestion.Results: Traffic congestion significantly diminished accessibility to radiotherapy services, particularly affecting vulnerable populations. For instance, urban 20-min ACO by car dropped from 91% of Cali’s urban population within a 20-min journey to the service during free-flow traffic to 31% during peak traffic for the week of 6–12 July 2020. Percentages represent the population within a 20-min journey by car from their residence to a radiotherapy service. Specific ethnic groups, individuals with lower educational attainment, and residents on the outskirts of Cali experienced disproportionate effects, with accessibility decreasing to 11% during peak traffic compared to 81% during free-flow traffic for low-income households. We predict that strategically adding sufficient services in 1–2 locations in eastern Cali would notably enhance accessibility and reduce inequities. The recommended locations for new services remained consistent in both of our measurements.These findings underscore the significance of prioritising equity and comprehensive care in healthcare accessibility. They also offer a practical approach to optimising service locations to mitigate disparities. Expanding this approach to encompass other transportation modes, services, and cities, or updating measurements, is feasible and affordable. The new approach and data are particularly relevant for planning authorities and urban development actors.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.