Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29996578›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of health policy and management2018

Addressing Health Equity Through Action on the Social Determinants of Health: A Global Review of Policy Outcome Evaluation Methods.

Janice Lee, Ashley Schram, Emily Riley, Patrick Harris, Fran Baum, Matt Fisher, Toby Freeman, Sharon Friel

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of health policy and management, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

8 authors.

Janice LeeSchool of Regulation and Global Governance (RegNet), College of Asia and the Pacific, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Ashley SchramSchool of Regulation and Global Governance (RegNet), College of Asia and the Pacific, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Emily RileyMenzies Centre for Health Policy, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Patrick HarrisMenzies Centre for Health Policy, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Fran BaumSouthgate Institute of Health, Society and Equity, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Matt FisherSouthgate Institute of Health, Society and Equity, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Toby FreemanSouthgate Institute of Health, Society and Equity, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Sharon FrielSchool of Regulation and Global Governance (RegNet), College of Asia and the Pacific, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEpidemiological evidence on the social determinants of health inequity is well-advanced, but considerably less attention has been given to evaluating the impact of public policies addressing those social determinants. Methodological challenges to produce evidence on policy outcomes present a significant barrier to mobilising policy actions for health equities. This review aims to examine methodological approaches to policy evaluation of health equity outcomes and identify promising approaches for future research.

methodsWe conducted a systematic narrative review of literature critically evaluating policy impact on health equity, synthesizing information on the methodological approaches used. We searched and screened records from five electronic databases, using pre-defined protocols resulting in a total of 50 studies included for review. We coded the studies according to (1) type of policy analysed; (2) research design; (3) analytical techniques; (4) health outcomes; and (5) equity dimensions evaluated.

resultsWe found a growing number of a wide range of policies being evaluated for health equity outcomes using a variety of research designs. The majority of studies employed an observational research design, most of which were cross-sectional, however, other approaches included experimental designs, simulation modelling, and meta-analysis. Regression techniques dominated the analytical approaches, although a number of novel techniques were used which may offer advantages over traditional regression analysis for the study of distributional impacts of policy. Few studies made intra-national or cross-national comparisons or collected primary data. Despite longstanding challenges of attribution in policy outcome evaluation, the majority of the studies attributed change in physical or mental health outcomes to the policy being evaluated.

conclusionOur review provides an overview of methodological approaches to health equity policy outcome evaluation, demonstrating what is most commonplace and opportunities from novel approaches. We found the number of studies evaluating the impacts of public policies on health equity are on the rise, but this area of policy evaluation still requires more attention given growing inequities.

Indexed as

Health EquityHealth PolicySocial Determinants of HealthGlobal HealthHealth Status DisparitiesHumansProgram EvaluationRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicHealth InequitiesMethodologyPolicy EvaluationReviewSocial Determinants of Health

Identifiers

PMID29996578
PMCPMC6037500

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.