Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2009 Dec 16;7 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S10.
doi: 10.1186/1478-4505-7-S1-S10.

SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 10: Taking equity into consideration when assessing the findings of a systematic review

Andrew D Oxman  1 , John N Lavis, Simon Lewin, Atle Fretheim
Affiliations

SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 10: Taking equity into consideration when assessing the findings of a systematic review

Andrew D Oxman et al. Health Res Policy Syst. .

Abstract

This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers. In this article we address considerations of equity. Inequities can be defined as "differences in health which are not only unnecessary and avoidable but, in addition, are considered unfair and unjust". These have been well documented in relation to social and economic factors. Policies or programmes that are effective can improve the overall health of a population. However, the impact of such policies and programmes on inequities may vary: they may have no impact on inequities, they may reduce inequities, or they may exacerbate them, regardless of their overall effects on population health. We suggest four questions that can be considered when using research evidence to inform considerations of the potential impact a policy or programme option is likely to have on disadvantaged groups, and on equity in a specific setting. These are: 1. Which groups or settings are likely to be disadvantaged in relation to the option being considered? 2. Are there plausible reasons for anticipating differences in the relative effectiveness of the option for disadvantaged groups or settings? 3. Are there likely to be different baseline conditions across groups or settings such that that the absolute effectiveness of the option would be different, and the problem more or less important, for disadvantaged groups or settings? 4. Are there important considerations that should be made when implementing the option in order to ensure that inequities are reduced, if possible, and that they are not increased?

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Step 4 in finding and assessing systematic reviews to inform policymaking: equity considerations.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Four steps to identifying and incorporating equity considerations when assessing the findings of a systematic review.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Absolute versus relative reductions in risk.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Lavis JN, Oxman AD, Lewin S, Fretheim A. SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP). Introduction. Health Res Policy Syst. 2009;7(Suppl 1):I1. doi: 10.1186/1478-4505-7-S1-I1. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Oxman AD, Lavis JN, Lewin S, Fretheim A. SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP). 1. What is evidence-informed policymaking. Health Res Policy Syst. 2009;7(Suppl 1):S1. doi: 10.1186/1478-4505-7-S1-S1. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Braveman P, Gruskin S. Defining equity in health. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2003;57:254–8. doi: 10.1136/jech.57.4.254. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Whitehead M. The concepts and principles of equity and health. Int J Health Serv. 1992;22:429–45. doi: 10.2190/986L-LHQ6-2VTE-YRRN. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Marmot M. Social determinants of health inequalities. Lancet. 2005;365:1099–104. - PubMed