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
Review
. 2021 Jul 2;ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print).
doi: 10.1108/JHOM-07-2020-0275.

Equity-informative methods of health services research

Richard Cookson  1 , Matthew Robson  2 , Ieva Skarda  1 , Tim Doran  2
Affiliations
Free article
Review

Equity-informative methods of health services research

Richard Cookson et al. J Health Organ Manag. .
Free article

Abstract

Purpose: We review quantitative methods for analysing the equity impacts of health care and public health interventions: who benefits most and who bears the largest burdens (opportunity costs)? Mainstream health services research focuses on effectiveness and efficiency but decision makers also need information about equity.

Design/methodology/approach: We review equity-informative methods of quantitative data analysis in three core areas of health services research: effectiveness analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis and performance measurement. An appendix includes further readings and resources.

Findings: Researchers seeking to analyse health equity impacts now have a practical and flexible set of methods at their disposal which builds on the standard health services research toolkit. Some of the more advanced methods require specialised skills, but basic equity-informative methods can be used by any health services researcher with appropriate skills in the three core areas.

Originality/value: We hope that this review will raise awareness of equity-informative methods of health services research and facilitate their entry into the mainstream so that health policymakers are routinely presented with information about who gains and who loses from their decisions.

Keywords: Conditional average treatment effects; Cost/benefit analysis; Distributional cost-effectiveness analysis; Equity; Inequality; Quality improvement; Quality indicators; Quasi experimental designs; Randomised controlled trials; Small-area analysis; Socioeconomic factors; Subgroup analysis.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Asante, A., Price, J., Hayen, A., Jan, S. and Wiseman, V. (2016), “Equity in health care financing in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review of evidence from studies using benefit and financing incidence analyses”, PloS One, Vol. 11 No. 4, p. e0152866.
    1. Bedoya, G., Bittarello, L., Davis, J. and Mittag, N. (2017), “Distributional impact analysis: toolkit and illustrations of impacts beyond the average treatment effect”, The World Bank. doi: 10.1596/1813-9450-8139.
    1. Blencowe, H., Krasevec, J., de Onis, M., Black, R., An, X., Stevens, G., Borghi, E., Hayashi, C., Estevez, D., Cegolon, L., Shiekh, S., Ponce Hardy, V., Lawn, J. and Cousens, S. (2019), “National, regional, and worldwide estimates of low birthweight in 2015, with trends from 2000: a systematic analysis”, The Lancet Global Health, Vol. 7, pp. e849-e860.
    1. Burke, J.F., Sussman, J.B., Kent, D.M. and Hayward, R.A. (2015), “Three simple rules to ensure reasonably credible subgroup analyses”, British Medical Journal, Vol. 351, p. h5651.
    1. Case, A. and Deaton, A. (2020), Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism, Princeton University Press, available at: https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=anK0DwAAQBAJ.

LinkOut - more resources