ArticleInternational journal for equity in health2026
Moving beyond the average: a method to measure health related-inequalities within randomised trials.
Article in International journal for equity in health, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRandomised trials seldom investigate the impacts interventions have on socioeconomic inequality in health, focusing instead on their average treatment effects.
methodsWe illustrate how standard measures of inequality such as the corrected concentration index can be reported in randomised experiments to quantify the interventions' socio-economic distribution effect alongside more traditional average treatment effects. We illustrate this with a proof-of-concept example using a study on the impact of information and financial incentives on verified COVID-19 vaccination uptake in rural Ghana (n = 2,271). We estimate the distributional treatment effects of informational public health messaging, low- and high-cash financial incentives relative to a placebo group and present this information on an achievement plane.
resultsHealth messaging had a pro-rich socioeconomic inequality impact of -0.132 [95% CI: -0.28-0.02] relative to the placebo group, while the low and high cash incentives had impacts of -0.108 [95% CI: -0.29-0.07] and - 0.081 [95% CI: -0.26-0.11] respectively, providing no significant evidence for changes in inequality relative to the placebo group. A low-cash incentive was the only intervention that was shown to increase vaccination uptake.
conclusionsA socioeconomic inequality of health distributional indicator could routinely be calculated in experimental results and presented alongside average treatment effects. This would enable the identification of whether there are equality-efficiency trade-offs. The methods presented in this paper can be used to support policy decision making with representative datasets provided there is appropriate statistical power.
trial registrationThe RCT investigated in this paper was registered with the American Economic Association on January 10, 2022, RCT ID: AEARCTR-0008775.
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.