Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42343397›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2026

Age equality in UK healthcare policy and decision-making: a scoping review.

Sapfo Lignou, Rachel Thompson, James Hart, Cai Heath

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Sapfo LignouEthox Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, Big Data Institute, Li Ka Shing Centre for Health Information and Discovery, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK. sapfo.lignou@ethox.ox.ac.uk.
Rachel ThompsonEthox Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, Big Data Institute, Li Ka Shing Centre for Health Information and Discovery, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK.
James HartEthox Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, Big Data Institute, Li Ka Shing Centre for Health Information and Discovery, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK.
Cai HeathEthox Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, Big Data Institute, Li Ka Shing Centre for Health Information and Discovery, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK.

Funding

Arts and Humanities Research Council [AH/Z506072/1]
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAge equality was enshrined in UK law by the Equality Act of 2010, which defined age as a protected characteristic and age discrimination unlawful, unless objectively justified. To date relatively little attention has been paid to how this legal requirement is interpreted and applied in healthcare. Such a lack of clarity raises significant legal and ethical questions regarding how age affects access to and provision of care. This scoping review aims to address this gap. It examines how age and age groups are considered in healthcare policies and decision-making processes and how age equality duties are understood and implemented in practice.

methodsThe scoping review draws on national and regional policy and decision-making documents, and relevant academic literature. It has two main objectives: first, to examine the explicit and implicit ways age influences healthcare provision. Second, to assess how different age-groups are represented or omitted in healthcare decision-making processes that determine access to care. Attention is given to age-based distinctions and omissions, their stated justifications or their absence in policy, and healthcare decision-making.

resultsOur findings indicate that despite legal protections, age equality is not yet consistently embedded in healthcare policy or practice with significant unresolved ethical tensions in approaches to age-equality. We identified gaps between stated policy commitments and implementation, limited attention to age-related inequalities and little clarity on when such inequalities may constitute inequities or raise concerns about unlawful discrimination. These include a lack of evidence for systematic monitoring of age-related inequalities and potential inequities, and lack of practical guidance to support healthcare decision-makers in meeting their equality duties.

conclusionsIt remains unclear whether and how key ethical tensions in the pursuit of age equality are resolved by decision-makers. To support a more consistent and transparent approach to age equality in healthcare, efforts should focus on strengthened decision-making processes and clearer operational guidance. The routine use of age-sensitive equality impact assessments across services could enable a more systematic identification of age-related health inequalities and inequities that may be overlooked across the lifecourse.

Indexed as

AgeismDecision MakingHealthcare DisparitiesHealth PolicyHealth Services AccessibilityAge FactorsDiversity, Equity, InclusionHumansUnited KingdomAge discriminationAge equalityAge-groupsClinical guidanceCommissioningEquality actHealthcare decision-makingHealth inequalitiesLawPolicy

Identifiers

PMID42343397
PMCPMC13551792

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.