ArticleGlobal health action2026
How equity in cancer services has been defined and measured, and why it matters: a scoping review of Universal Health Coverage systems.
Article in Global health action, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Cancer equity is a global priority, particularly within Universal Health Coverage systems that are committed to reducing disparities in access and outcomes. However, practical barriers to addressing inequities persist, such as varying definitions and clinical measurements. This inconsistency leads to a reliance on data that does not accurately reflect existing inequities or progress towards equitable care. Commonly reported measures are often aggregate, population-level indicators, such as cancer incidence and mortality, which fall outside the scope of health services and clinicians to influence. A detailed protocol and search strategy were developed a priori, following the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer's Manual. Systematic searching was conducted via PudMed Central, CINAHL EBSCO and Cochrane, resulting in 53 studies meeting the selection criteria for analysis. Only eight (
Indexed as
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.