ArticlePLOS global public health2025
How do high-level African directors of policy and planning operationalize health equity? Findings from a regional survey.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- What opportunities exist for the governance of private sector engagement in mixed health systems in the African Region?Journal of global health · 2025Article
- How do World Health Organization technical officers working on noncommunicable diseases approach health equity?International journal for equity in health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigates the operationalization of health equity and associated challenges faced by directors of policy and planning and those in related positions in the African Region. The results of this study demonstrate that health equity is generally a priority for policymakers in practice and is operationalized in four ways: (i) targeting priority groups, (ii) focusing on the entire population; (iii) through procedural justice; and (iv) operationalizing population health data. The targeted approach, which predominated, tended to focus on individuals with lower socioeconomic status, maternal and child health services, and select infectious diseases (e.g., HIV/AIDS). The population-wide approach entailed the inclusion of health equity in institutional laws, constitutions, and national policies with efforts to ensure access to health services for all. Procedural justice largely focused on the inclusion of stakeholders in decision-making processes. Lastly, operationalizing population health data was noted to guide policy and planning to address health inequities, often through aiding in the selection of priority groups or areas for intervention and monitoring and evaluation actions focused on improving health equity. Four main domains of challenges for incorporating health equity emerged relating to: (i) understanding health equity, (ii) governance, (iii) resources, and (iv) lack of data. Our recommendations are two-fold: (i) we recommend that researchers focus on improving understandings of health equity among policymakers through knowledge translation and exchange, and (ii) we recommend that policymakers and those working within donor organizations focus on reforming any top-down processes through which priorities are set and decisions are made.
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.