Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26853896›Full record

ArticleGlobal health action2016

Scoping review: national monitoring frameworks for social determinants of health and health equity.

Leo Pedrana, Marina Pamponet, Ruth Walker, Federico Costa, Davide Rasella

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Global health action, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Analyzing Spatial Patterns of Health Vulnerability to Drought in the Brazilian Semiarid Region.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  11. Healthy aging determinants and disability among older adults: SABE Colombia.Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health · 2021
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Promoting equity for a better quality of care for all Europeans.The European journal of general practice · 2018
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Leo PedranaISC Instituto de Saúde Coletiva, UFBA - Universidade Federal da Bahia, Salvador, Brazil; leo.pedrana@gmail.com.
Marina PamponetISC Instituto de Saúde Coletiva, UFBA - Universidade Federal da Bahia, Salvador, Brazil.
Ruth WalkerDepartment of Evolution, Ecology and Behaviour, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Federico CostaISC Instituto de Saúde Coletiva, UFBA - Universidade Federal da Bahia, Salvador, Brazil.
Davide RasellaISC Instituto de Saúde Coletiva, UFBA - Universidade Federal da Bahia, Salvador, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe strategic importance of monitoring social determinants of health (SDH) and health equity and inequity has been a central focus in global discussions around the 2011 Rio Political Declaration on SDH and the Millennium Development Goals. This study is part of the World Health Organization (WHO) equity-oriented analysis of linkages between health and other sectors (EQuAL) project, which aims to define a framework for monitoring SDH and health equity.

objectivesThis review provides a global summary and analysis of the domains and indicators that have been used in recent studies covering the SDH. These studies are considered here within the context of indicators proposed by the WHO EQuAL project. The objectives are as follows: to describe the range of international and national studies and the types of indicators most frequently used; report how they are used in causal explanation of the SDH; and identify key priorities and challenges reported in current research for national monitoring of the SDH.

designWe conducted a scoping review of published SDH studies in the PubMed(®) database to obtain evidence of socio-economic indicators. We evaluated, selected, and extracted data from national scale studies published from 2004 to 2014. The research included papers published in English, Italian, French, Portuguese, and Spanish.

resultsThe final sample consisted of 96 articles. SDH monitoring is well reported in the scientific literature independent of the economic level of the country and magnitude of deprivation in population groups. The research methods were mostly quantitative and many papers used multilevel and multivariable statistical analyses and indexes to measure health inequalities and SDH. In addition to the usual economic indicators, a high number of socio-economic indicators were used. The indicators covered a broad range of social dimensions, which were given consideration within and across different social groups. Many indicators included in the WHO EQuAL framework were not common in the studies in this review due to their intersectoral and interdisciplinary nature.

conclusionsOur review illustrates that the attention to SDH monitoring has grown in terms of its importance and complexity within the scientific health literature. We identified a need to make indicators more wide-ranging in order to include a broader range of social conditions. The WHO EQuAL framework can provide intersectoral and interdisciplinary means of building a more comprehensive standardised approach to monitoring the SDH and improving equity in health.

Indexed as

Health EquitySocial Determinants of HealthGlobal HealthHealth PolicyHealth Status DisparitiesHumansWorld Health OrganizationEQuALequityframeworkhealth inequityindicatorsinequalitymonitoringscoping reviewsocial determinants

Identifiers

PMID26853896
PMCPMC4744868

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.