Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31542840›Full record

ArticleThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2020

Measuring horizontal inequity in healthcare utilisation: a review of methodological developments and debates.

Mohammad Habibullah Pulok, Kees van Gool, Mohammad Hajizadeh, Sara Allin, Jane Hall

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Inequity in psychiatric healthcare use in Australia.Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Mohammad Habibullah PulokSchool of Health Administration, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada. mohammad.pulok@dal.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9168-5732
Kees van GoolCentre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation (CHERE), University of Technology Sydney (UTS), Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Mohammad HajizadehSchool of Health Administration, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada.
Sara AllinInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, The University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Jane HallCentre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation (CHERE), University of Technology Sydney (UTS), Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Equity in healthcare is an overarching goal of many healthcare systems around the world. Empirical studies of equity in healthcare utilisation primarily rely on the horizontal inequity (HI) approach which measures unequal utilisation of healthcare services by socioeconomic status (SES) for equal medical need. The HI method examines, quantifies, and explains inequity which is based on regression analysis, the concentration index, and the decomposition technique. However, this method is not beyond limitations and criticisms, and it has been subject to several methodological challenges in the past decade. This review presents a summary of the recent developments and debates on various methodological issues and their implications on the assessment of HI in healthcare utilisation. We discuss the key disputes centred on measurement scale of healthcare variables as well as the evolution of the decomposition technique. We also highlight the issues about the choice of variables as the indicator of SES in measuring inequity. This follows a discussion on the application of the longitudinal method and use of administrative data to quantify inequity. Future research could exploit the potential for health administrative data linked to social data to generate more comprehensive estimates of inequity across the healthcare continuum. This review would be helpful to guide future applied research to examine inequity in healthcare utilisation.

Indexed as

Healthcare DisparitiesHealth ServicesPatient Acceptance of Health CareFemaleHealth Services AccessibilityHumansSocial ClassSocioeconomic FactorsConcentration indexHealthcare utilisationInequityMethodsReview

Identifiers

PMID31542840

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.