Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37418259›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2023

Mapping Health Disparities in 11 High-Income Nations.

Neil J MacKinnon, Vanessa Emery, Jennifer Waller, Brittany Ange, Preshit Ambade, Munira Gunja, Emma Watson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  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
  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

7 authors.

Neil J MacKinnonDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Augusta University, Augusta, Georgia.
Vanessa EmeryOffice of the Provost and Institute of Public and Preventive Health, Augusta University, Augusta, Georgia.
Jennifer WallerDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Augusta University, Augusta, Georgia.
Brittany AngeDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Augusta University, Augusta, Georgia.
Preshit AmbadeDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Augusta University, Augusta, Georgia.
Munira GunjaInternational Program in Health Policy and Practice Innovations, Commonwealth Fund, New York, New York.
Emma WatsonNational Health Service Education for Scotland, Edinburgh, Scotland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Health care delivery faces a myriad of challenges globally with well-documented health inequities based on geographic location. Yet, researchers and policy makers have a limited understanding of the frequency of geographic health disparities. Objective: To describe geographic health disparities in 11 high-income countries. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this survey study, we analyzed results from the 2020 Commonwealth Fund International Health Policy (IHP) Survey-a nationally representative, self-reported, and cross-sectional survey of adults from Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK, and the US. Eligible adults older than age 18 years were included by random sampling. Survey data were compared for the association of area type (rural or urban) with 10 health indicators across 3 domains: health status and socioeconomic risk factors, affordability of care, and access to care. Logistic regression was used to determine the associations between countries with area type for each factor, controlling for individuals' age and sex. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were geographic health disparities as measured by differences in respondents living in urban and rural settings in 10 health indicators across 3 domains. Results: There were 22 402 survey respondents (12 804 female [57.2%]), with a 14% to 49% response rate depending on the country. Across the 11 countries and 10 health indicators and 3 domains (health status and socioeconomic risk factors, affordability of care, access to care), there were 21 occurrences of geographic health disparities; 13 of those in which rural residence was a protective factor and 8 of those where rural residence was a risk factor. The mean (SD) number of geographic health disparities in the countries was 1.9 (1.7). The US had statistically significant geographic health disparities in 5 of 10 indicators, the most of any country, while Canada, Norway, and the Netherlands had no statistically significant geographic health disparities. The indicators with the most occurrences of geographic health disparities were in the access to care domain. Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study of 11 high-income nations, health disparities across 10 indicators were identified. Differences in number of disparities reported by country suggest that health policy and decision makers in the US should look to Canada, Norway, and the Netherlands to improve geographic-based health equity.

Indexed as

IncomeAdolescentAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansNetherlandsSocioeconomic FactorsSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID37418259
PMCPMC10329207

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.