SynthesisThe Milbank quarterly2015
Advocacy for health equity: a synthesis review.
Synthesis in The Milbank quarterly, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 80 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
80 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Exploring methods to assess environmental health inequalities in health impact assessments of local interventions: a systematic review within the JA PreventNCD project.Frontiers in public health · 2025Pooled it
- Inequity in uptake of maternal health care services in developing countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2024Pooled it
- Strategies for knowledge exchange for action to address place-based determinants of health inequalities: an umbrella review.Journal of public health (Oxford, England) · 2023Pooled it
- Systematic Review of Sex and Gender Effects in Traumatic Brain Injury: Equity in Clinical and Functional Outcomes.Frontiers in neurology · 2021Pooled it
- The evidence gap on gendered impacts of performance-based financing among family physicians for chronic disease care: a systematic review reanalysis in contexts of single-payer universal coverage.Human resources for health · 2020Pooled it
- Interprofessional education initiatives to teach advocacy in health professions programs: a narrative review.Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice · 2026Review
- A socioecological framework for physician advocacy: motivators, enablers, and barriers.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2026Article
- Uneven integration of health in China's territorial spatial planning 2035.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Experiences of professional public health advocacy in the UK health and social care system: a qualitative survey study [using the Theoretical Domains Framework].Journal of public health (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Building capacity for patient advocacy in liver health: a cross-country qualitative study.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Defining advocacy in public health: a scoping review to inform policy, training, and equity-oriented action.International journal for equity in health · 2026Article
- Towards an international research agenda for public health advocacy: Practice, preparedness and knowledge gaps.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Decision tree for improving the impact of equity-focused public health service delivery and research.Frontiers in health services · 2026Article
- A twinning initiative between midwife associations in Ghana and Sweden -A process evaluation study.Global health action · 2025Article
- Advocacy for health rights with a group of patients with chronic diseases in a low-income neighbourhood in Ecuador.BMC research notes · 2025Article
- Key indicators for evaluating Iran's health insurance performance.Health economics review · 2025Article
- Advancing quadruple helix theory for health systems innovation: evidence from Ageing@Coimbra.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Exploring Clinicians' Suggestions for Addressing Discrimination Towards Children and Youth With Disabilities With Multiple Minoritized Identities.Child: care, health and development · 2025Article
- Advocating for Professional Advocates in Nursing and Midwifery.Policy, politics & nursing practice · 2025Article
- Article
20 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
unlabelledPOLICY POINTS: Many barriers hamper advocacy for health equity, including the contemporary economic zeitgeist, the biomedical health perspective, and difficulties cooperating across policy sectors on the issue. Effective advocacy should include persistent efforts to raise awareness and understanding of the social determinants of health. Education on the social determinants as part of medical training should be encouraged, including professional training within disadvantaged communities. Advocacy organizations have a central role in advocating for health equity given the challenges bridging the worlds of civil society, research, and policy. CONTEXT: Health inequalities are systematic differences in health among social groups that are caused by unequal exposure to-and distributions of-the social determinants of health (SDH). They are persistent between and within countries despite action to reduce them. Advocacy is a means of promoting policies that improve health equity, but the literature on how to do so effectively is dispersed. The aim of this review is to synthesize the evidence in the academic and gray literature and to provide a body of knowledge for advocates to draw on to inform their efforts.
methodsThis article is a systematic review of the academic literature and a fixed-length systematic search of the gray literature. After applying our inclusion criteria, we analyzed our findings according to our predefined dimensions of advocacy for health equity. Last, we synthesized our findings and made a critical appraisal of the literature.
findingsThe policy world is complex, and scientific evidence is unlikely to be conclusive in making decisions. Timely qualitative, interdisciplinary, and mixed-methods research may be valuable in advocacy efforts. The potential impact of evidence can be increased by "packaging" it as part of knowledge transfer and translation. Increased contact between researchers and policymakers could improve the uptake of research in policy processes. Researchers can play a role in advocacy efforts, although health professionals and disadvantaged people, who have direct contact with or experience of hardship, can be particularly persuasive in advocacy efforts. Different types of advocacy messages can accompany evidence, but messages should be tailored to advocacy target. Several barriers hamper advocacy efforts. The most frequently cited in the academic literature are the current political and economic zeitgeist and related public opinion, which tend to blame disadvantaged people for their ill health, even though biomedical approaches to health and political short-termism also act as barriers. These barriers could be tackled through long-term actions to raise public awareness and understanding of the SDH and through training of health professionals in advocacy. Advocates need to take advantage of "windows of opportunity," which open and close quickly, and demonstrate expertise and credibility.
conclusionsThis article brings together for the first time evidence from the academic and the gray literature and provides a building block for efforts to advocate for health equity. Evidence regarding many of the dimensions is scant, and additional research is merited, particularly concerning the applicability of findings outside the English-speaking world. Advocacy organizations have a central role in advocating for health equity, given the challenges bridging the worlds of civil society, research, and policy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.