ArticleLancet (London, England)2018
Measuring performance on the Healthcare Access and Quality Index for 195 countries and territories and selected subnational locations: a systematic analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016.
Article in Lancet (London, England), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 480 papers, 13 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
480 citing papers in PubMed, 13 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Advancing equity and value in United States healthcare: an umbrella review.International journal for equity in health · 2026Pooled it
- National, regional, and provincial prevalence of age-related macular degeneration in China in 2020: an updated systematic review and modelling study.Journal of global health · 2026Pooled it
- Barriers to utilization of primary healthcare services: a systematic review of experiences in ten selected countries.International journal of public health · 2026Pooled it
- Trends in non-suicidal self-injury among adolescents: A global cross-temporal meta-analysis, 2007-2023.Psychological medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Global, regional, and national cascades of diabetes care, 2000-23: a systematic review and modelling analysis using findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study.The lancet. Diabetes & endocrinology · 2025Pooled it
- Effect of pregnancy intention on completion of maternity continuum of care in Sub-Saharan Africa: systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2024Pooled it
- Global, regional, and national incidence and mortality burden of non-COVID-19 lower respiratory infections and aetiologies, 1990-2021: a systematic analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021.The Lancet. Infectious diseases · 2024Pooled it
- Prevalence of preterm birth in Scandinavian countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The Journal of international medical research · 2023Pooled it
- Global, regional, and national burden of meningitis and its aetiologies, 1990-2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019.The Lancet. Neurology · 2023Pooled it
- The application of spatial measures to analyse health service accessibility in Australia: a systematic review and recommendations for future practice.BMC health services research · 2023Pooled it
- Occupational risk factors for multiple sclerosis: a systematic review with meta-analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2023Pooled it
- Global Epidemiological Features of Human Monkeypox Cases and Their Associations With Social-Economic Level and International Travel Arrivals: A Systematic Review and Ecological Study.International journal of public health · 2023Pooled it
- Meta-analysis: risk of hepatitis C virus infection associated with hospital-based invasive procedures.Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics · 2022Pooled it
- Article
- The global cost of schizophrenia: a health economic modelling study.International journal of mental health systems · 2026Article
- Estimating the Underreporting of COVID-19 Burden in Selected Countries in Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America in the Post-pandemic Era.Pulmonary therapy · 2026Article
- Global trends in epilepsy and the Chinese experience: Epidemiological transitions, underlying mechanisms, and integrated strategies (1990-2021).Neuroprotection (Chichester, England) · 2026Review
- Tracking funding disparities in global health aid with machine learning.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Global landscape and temporal trends in lifetime risk of colorectal cancer in 185 countries: a population-based study.Cancer biology & medicine · 2026Article
- Global inequalities in tracheal, bronchus, and lung cancer care quality from 1990 to 2021.iScience · 2026Article
420 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA key component of achieving universal health coverage is ensuring that all populations have access to quality health care. Examining where gains have occurred or progress has faltered across and within countries is crucial to guiding decisions and strategies for future improvement. We used the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2016 (GBD 2016) to assess personal health-care access and quality with the Healthcare Access and Quality (HAQ) Index for 195 countries and territories, as well as subnational locations in seven countries, from 1990 to 2016.
methodsDrawing from established methods and updated estimates from GBD 2016, we used 32 causes from which death should not occur in the presence of effective care to approximate personal health-care access and quality by location and over time. To better isolate potential effects of personal health-care access and quality from underlying risk factor patterns, we risk-standardised cause-specific deaths due to non-cancers by location-year, replacing the local joint exposure of environmental and behavioural risks with the global level of exposure. Supported by the expansion of cancer registry data in GBD 2016, we used mortality-to-incidence ratios for cancers instead of risk-standardised death rates to provide a stronger signal of the effects of personal health care and access on cancer survival. We transformed each cause to a scale of 0-100, with 0 as the first percentile (worst) observed between 1990 and 2016, and 100 as the 99th percentile (best); we set these thresholds at the country level, and then applied them to subnational locations. We applied a principal components analysis to construct the HAQ Index using all scaled cause values, providing an overall score of 0-100 of personal health-care access and quality by location over time. We then compared HAQ Index levels and trends by quintiles on the Socio-demographic Index (SDI), a summary measure of overall development. As derived from the broader GBD study and other data sources, we examined relationships between national HAQ Index scores and potential correlates of performance, such as total health spending per capita.
findingsIn 2016, HAQ Index performance spanned from a high of 97·1 (95% UI 95·8-98·1) in Iceland, followed by 96·6 (94·9-97·9) in Norway and 96·1 (94·5-97·3) in the Netherlands, to values as low as 18·6 (13·1-24·4) in the Central African Republic, 19·0 (14·3-23·7) in Somalia, and 23·4 (20·2-26·8) in Guinea-Bissau. The pace of progress achieved between 1990 and 2016 varied, with markedly faster improvements occurring between 2000 and 2016 for many countries in sub-Saharan Africa and southeast Asia, whereas several countries in Latin America and elsewhere saw progress stagnate after experiencing considerable advances in the HAQ Index between 1990 and 2000. Striking subnational disparities emerged in personal health-care access and quality, with China and India having particularly large gaps between locations with the highest and lowest scores in 2016. In China, performance ranged from 91·5 (89·1-93·6) in Beijing to 48·0 (43·4-53·2) in Tibet (a 43·5-point difference), while India saw a 30·8-point disparity, from 64·8 (59·6-68·8) in Goa to 34·0 (30·3-38·1) in Assam. Japan recorded the smallest range in subnational HAQ performance in 2016 (a 4·8-point difference), whereas differences between subnational locations with the highest and lowest HAQ Index values were more than two times as high for the USA and three times as high for England. State-level gaps in the HAQ Index in Mexico somewhat narrowed from 1990 to 2016 (from a 20·9-point to 17·0-point difference), whereas in Brazil, disparities slightly increased across states during this time (a 17·2-point to 20·4-point difference). Performance on the HAQ Index showed strong linkages to overall development, with high and high-middle SDI countries generally having higher scores and faster gains for non-communicable diseases. Nonetheless, countries across the development spectrum saw substantial gains in some key health service areas from 2000 to 2016, most notably vaccine-preventable diseases. Overall, national performance on the HAQ Index was positively associated with higher levels of total health spending per capita, as well as health systems inputs, but these relationships were quite heterogeneous, particularly among low-to-middle SDI countries.
interpretationGBD 2016 provides a more detailed understanding of past success and current challenges in improving personal health-care access and quality worldwide. Despite substantial gains since 2000, many low-SDI and middle-SDI countries face considerable challenges unless heightened policy action and investments focus on advancing access to and quality of health care across key health services, especially non-communicable diseases. Stagnating or minimal improvements experienced by several low-middle to high-middle SDI countries could reflect the complexities of re-orienting both primary and secondary health-care services beyond the more limited foci of the Millennium Development Goals. Alongside initiatives to strengthen public health programmes, the pursuit of universal health coverage hinges upon improving both access and quality worldwide, and thus requires adopting a more comprehensive view-and subsequent provision-of quality health care for all populations.
fundingBill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
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.