Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37579351›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of health policy and management2022

Policies for Social and Health Equity: The Case for Equity Sensitive Universalism Comment on "Implementing Universal and Targeted Policies for Health Equity: Lessons From Australia".

Rebecca Mead, Chrissie Pickin, Jennie Popay

Abstract readComment
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of health policy and management, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Rebecca MeadDivision of Health Research, Faculty of Health and Medicine, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1954-5276
Chrissie PickinRetired from Department of Health and Human Services, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Jennie PopayDivision of Health Research, Faculty of Health and Medicine, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9234-908X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This commentary reflects on an important article by Fisher and colleagues who draw on four Australian policy case studies to examine how universal and targeted approaches or a combination can be deployed to improve health equity. They conclude that universal approaches are central to action to increase health equity, but that targeting can improve equity of access in some situations including in the context of proportionate universalism. However, we argue that although target services may provide benefits for some populations, they are often stigmatizing and fail to reach may people they aim to support. Instead of accepting the dominant discourse about the key role for targeted approaches, we argue that those committed to reduce social and health inequities should consider the potential of Equity Sensitive Universalism (ESU). This approach focuses on achieving proportionate outcomes with equally provided resources rather than proportionate inputs and provides a 'cohesion dividend,' increasing social solidarity.

Indexed as

Health EquityAustraliaHealth PolicyHumansHealth EquitySocial DividendStigmaTargetingUniversalism

Identifiers

PMID37579351
PMCPMC10105182

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.