• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

生殖、孕产妇、新生儿和儿童健康干预措施的提供渠道和社会经济不平等:对低收入和中等收入国家的 36 项横断面调查的分析。

Delivery channels and socioeconomic inequalities in coverage of reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health interventions: analysis of 36 cross-sectional surveys in low-income and middle-income countries.

机构信息

International Center for Equity in Health, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, RS, Brazil.

International Center for Equity in Health, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, RS, Brazil.

出版信息

Lancet Glob Health. 2021 Aug;9(8):e1101-e1109. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(21)00204-7. Epub 2021 May 26.

DOI:10.1016/S2214-109X(21)00204-7
PMID:34051180
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8295042/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Global reports have described inequalities in coverage of reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health (RMNCH) interventions, but little is known about how socioeconomic inequality in intervention coverage varies across multiple low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We aimed to assess the association between wealth-related inequalities in coverage of RMNCH interventions.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, we identified publicly available Demographic Health Surveys and Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys from LMICs containing information on household characteristics, reproductive health, women's and children's health, nutrition, and mortality. We identified the most recent survey from the period 2010-19 for 36 countries that contained data for our preselected set of 18 RMNCH interventions. 21 countries also had information on two common malaria interventions. We classified interventions into four groups according to their predominant delivery channels: health facility based, community based, environmental, and culturally driven (including breastfeeding practices). Within each country, we derived wealth quintiles from information on household asset indices. We studied two summary measures of within-country wealth-related inequality: absolute inequalities (akin to coverage differences among children from wealthy and poor households) using the slope index of inequality (SII), and relative inequalities (akin to the ratio of coverage levels for wealthy and poor children) using the concentration index (CIX). Pro-poor inequalities are present when intervention coverage decreased with increasing household wealth, and pro-rich inequalities are present when intervention coverage increased as household wealth increased.

FINDINGS

Across the 36 LMICs included in our analyses, coverage of most interventions had pro-rich patterns in most countries, except for two breastfeeding indicators that mostly had higher coverage among poor women, children and households than wealthy women, children, and households. Environmental interventions were the most unequal, particularly use of clean fuels, which had median levels of SII of 48·8 (8·6-85·7) and CIX of 67·0 (45·0-85·8). Interventions primarily delivered in health facilities-namely institutional childbirth (median SII 46·7 [23·1-63·3] and CIX 11·4 [4·5-23·4]) and antenatal care (median SII 26·7 [17·0-47·2] and CIX 10·0 [4·2-17·1])-also usually had pro-rich patterns. By comparison, primarily community-based interventions, including those against malaria, were more equitably distributed-eg, oral rehydration therapy (median SII 9·4 [2·9-19·0] and CIX 3·4 [1·3-25·0]) and polio immunisation (SII 12·1 [2·3-25·0] and CIX 3·1 [0·5-7·1]). Differences across the four types of delivery channels in terms of both inequality indices were significant (SII p=0·0052; CIX p=0·0048).

INTERPRETATION

Interventions that are often delivered at community level are usually more equitably distributed than those primarily delivered in fixed facilities or those that require changes in the home environment. Policy makers need to learn from community delivery channels to promote more equitable access to all RMNCH interventions.

FUNDING

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Wellcome Trust.

TRANSLATIONS

For the French, Portuguese and Spanish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/772d/8295042/836ec7589823/gr3.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/772d/8295042/8b67ed9ef075/gr1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/772d/8295042/1e19de9b2cf2/gr2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/772d/8295042/836ec7589823/gr3.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/772d/8295042/8b67ed9ef075/gr1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/772d/8295042/1e19de9b2cf2/gr2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/772d/8295042/836ec7589823/gr3.jpg
摘要

背景

全球报告描述了生殖、孕产妇、新生儿和儿童健康(RMNCH)干预措施覆盖方面的不平等现象,但对于在多个低收入和中等收入国家(LMICs)中,干预措施覆盖的社会经济不平等程度如何变化,知之甚少。我们旨在评估 RMNCH 干预措施覆盖方面的与财富相关的不平等之间的关联。

方法

在这项横断面研究中,我们从包含家庭特征、生殖健康、妇女和儿童健康、营养和死亡率信息的 LMIC 中确定了公开的人口健康调查和多指标类集调查。我们为预先选定的 18 项 RMNCH 干预措施确定了最近的调查,这些调查来自 2010-19 年期间的 36 个国家。其中 21 个国家还包含了两种常见疟疾干预措施的信息。我们根据其主要的提供渠道将干预措施分为四类:基于卫生机构、基于社区、基于环境和基于文化(包括母乳喂养实践)。在每个国家中,我们从家庭资产指数信息中得出了财富五分位数。我们研究了两种衡量国家内部与财富相关的不平等的综合指标:绝对不平等(类似于来自富裕和贫困家庭的儿童之间的覆盖差异),使用斜率指数不平等(SII);相对不平等(类似于富裕和贫困儿童的覆盖水平之比),使用集中指数(CIX)。当干预措施的覆盖范围随着家庭财富的增加而减少时,存在有利于贫困的不平等,而当干预措施的覆盖范围随着家庭财富的增加而增加时,存在有利于富裕的不平等。

发现

在我们分析的 36 个 LMICs 中,除了两个主要针对贫困妇女、儿童和家庭的母乳喂养指标外,大多数国家的大多数干预措施都呈现出有利于富裕的模式。环境干预措施最不平等,特别是清洁燃料的使用,其 SII 的中位数为 48.8(8.6-85.7),CIX 的中位数为 67.0(45.0-85.8)。主要在卫生机构提供的干预措施——即机构分娩(中位数 SII 46.7 [23.1-63.3]和 CIX 11.4 [4.5-23.4])和产前护理(中位数 SII 26.7 [17.0-47.2]和 CIX 10.0 [4.2-17.1])——也通常具有有利于富裕的模式。相比之下,主要是基于社区的干预措施,包括针对疟疾的干预措施,分配更为公平——例如,口服补液疗法(中位数 SII 9.4 [2.9-19.0]和 CIX 3.4 [1.3-25.0])和小儿麻痹症免疫(SII 12.1 [2.3-25.0]和 CIX 3.1 [0.5-7.1])。在这两种不平等指数方面,四种不同的提供渠道之间的差异具有统计学意义(SII p=0.0052;CIX p=0.0048)。

解释

通常在社区层面提供的干预措施通常比主要在固定设施提供的干预措施或需要改变家庭环境的干预措施更公平分配。政策制定者需要从社区提供渠道中吸取经验,以促进所有人都能公平获得所有 RMNCH 干预措施。

资助

比尔及梅琳达·盖茨基金会和惠康信托基金会。

相似文献

1
Delivery channels and socioeconomic inequalities in coverage of reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health interventions: analysis of 36 cross-sectional surveys in low-income and middle-income countries.生殖、孕产妇、新生儿和儿童健康干预措施的提供渠道和社会经济不平等:对低收入和中等收入国家的 36 项横断面调查的分析。
Lancet Glob Health. 2021 Aug;9(8):e1101-e1109. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(21)00204-7. Epub 2021 May 26.
2
Wealth and education-related inequalities in the utilisation of reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health interventions within scheduled tribes in India: an analysis of Odisha and Jharkhand.印度 scheduled tribes 中生殖、孕产妇、新生儿和儿童健康干预措施利用方面的财富和教育相关不平等:奥里萨邦和贾坎德邦的分析。
BMC Public Health. 2024 Jun 17;24(1):1605. doi: 10.1186/s12889-024-18857-4.
3
Coverage and inequalities in maternal and child health interventions in Afghanistan.阿富汗孕产妇和儿童健康干预措施的覆盖范围及不平等情况。
BMC Public Health. 2016 Sep 12;16 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):797. doi: 10.1186/s12889-016-3406-1.
4
Ethnic group inequalities in coverage with reproductive, maternal and child health interventions: cross-sectional analyses of national surveys in 16 Latin American and Caribbean countries.族群在生殖、孕产妇和儿童健康干预措施方面的覆盖率不平等:对 16 个拉丁美洲和加勒比国家的国家调查的横断面分析。
Lancet Glob Health. 2018 Aug;6(8):e902-e913. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(18)30300-0.
5
Are the poorest poor being left behind? Estimating global inequalities in reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health.最贫困的人群是否被落下了?估计生殖、孕产妇、新生儿和儿童健康方面的全球不平等。
BMJ Glob Health. 2020 Jan 26;5(1):e002229. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2019-002229. eCollection 2020.
6
National and subnational coverage and inequalities in reproductive, maternal, newborn, child, and sanitary health interventions in Ecuador: a comparative study between 1994 and 2012.厄瓜多尔生殖、孕产妇、新生儿、儿童和卫生健康干预措施的国家和国家以下层面的覆盖范围和不平等情况:1994 年和 2012 年的比较研究。
Int J Equity Health. 2021 Jan 28;20(1):48. doi: 10.1186/s12939-020-01359-1.
7
Measuring universal health coverage in reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health: An update of the composite coverage index.衡量生殖、孕产妇、新生儿和儿童健康方面的全民健康覆盖:综合覆盖指数的更新。
PLoS One. 2020 Apr 29;15(4):e0232350. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232350. eCollection 2020.
8
Equity in maternal, newborn, and child health interventions in Countdown to 2015: a retrospective review of survey data from 54 countries.倒计时 2015 年母婴儿童健康干预中的公平性:54 个国家调查数据的回顾性分析。
Lancet. 2012 Mar 31;379(9822):1225-33. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60113-5.
9
Equity in antenatal care quality: an analysis of 91 national household surveys.产前护理质量中的公平性:91 项国家家庭调查分析。
Lancet Glob Health. 2018 Nov;6(11):e1186-e1195. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(18)30389-9.
10
How changes in coverage affect equity in maternal and child health interventions in 35 Countdown to 2015 countries: an analysis of national surveys.35 个倒计时国家孕产妇和儿童健康干预措施中的覆盖范围变化如何影响公平性:国家调查分析。
Lancet. 2012 Sep 29;380(9848):1149-56. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61427-5. Epub 2012 Sep 20.

引用本文的文献

1
Patterns of maternal and child health services utilization and associated socioeconomic disparities in sub-Saharan Africa.撒哈拉以南非洲地区妇幼保健服务利用模式及相关社会经济差异
Nat Commun. 2025 Aug 22;16(1):7840. doi: 10.1038/s41467-025-61350-8.
2
Inequality in Utilization of Maternal Healthcare Services in Low‑ and Middle‑Income Countries: A Scoping Review of the Literature.低收入和中等收入国家孕产妇保健服务利用的不平等:文献综述
Matern Child Health J. 2025 Jun 3. doi: 10.1007/s10995-025-04111-9.
3
Global, regional, and national disability-adjusted life years and prevalence of lymphatic filariasis from 1990 to 2021: A trend and health inequality analysis based on the global burden of disease study 2021.

本文引用的文献

1
Complementary Feeding Practices in 80 Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Prevalence of and Socioeconomic Inequalities in Dietary Diversity, Meal Frequency, and Dietary Adequacy.80 个低收入和中等收入国家的补充喂养实践:饮食多样性、进餐频率和饮食充足度的流行情况及社会经济不平等。
J Nutr. 2021 Jul 1;151(7):1956-1964. doi: 10.1093/jn/nxab088.
2
Basic maternal health care coverage among adolescents in 22 sub-Saharan African countries with high adolescent birth rate.撒哈拉以南非洲 22 个青少年生育率较高国家青少年基本孕产妇保健服务的覆盖率。
J Glob Health. 2020 Dec;10(2):021401. doi: 10.7189/jogh.10.021401.
3
An overview of reviews on strategies to reduce health inequalities.
1990年至2021年全球、区域和国家的淋巴丝虫病伤残调整生命年及患病率:基于2021年全球疾病负担研究的趋势与健康不平等分析
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2025 Apr 29;19(4):e0013017. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0013017. eCollection 2025 Apr.
4
Trends and inequalities in women's use of quality antenatal care, intrapartum care, and immediate postnatal care services in Ethiopia: multivariate decomposition, secondary data analyses of four demographic and health surveys over two decades (2001-2019).埃塞俄比亚妇女在使用优质产前护理、分娩期护理和产后即时护理服务方面的趋势与不平等:多变量分解,对二十年间(2001 - 2019年)四次人口与健康调查的二次数据分析
BMJ Open. 2025 Mar 28;15(3):e099309. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2025-099309.
5
Perceptions, Causes and Treatment of Severe Acute Malnutrition, Mbuji-Mayi, Kasai-Oriental, Democratic Republic of the Congo.刚果民主共和国东开赛省姆布吉马伊市重度急性营养不良的认知、成因及治疗
Matern Child Nutr. 2025 Jul;21(3):e70024. doi: 10.1111/mcn.70024. Epub 2025 Mar 24.
6
Socio-economic inequalities in minimum dietary diversity among Ethiopian children aged 6-23 months: a decomposition analysis.埃塞俄比亚6至23个月大儿童最低饮食多样性方面的社会经济不平等:分解分析
Front Public Health. 2025 Jan 29;12:1422563. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1422563. eCollection 2024.
7
Power Relations in Optimisation of Therapies and Equity in Access to Antibiotics (PROTEA) Study: investigating the intersection of socio-economic and cultural drivers on antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and its influence on healthcare access and health-providing behaviours in India and South Africa.优化治疗中的权力关系与抗生素获取公平性(PROTEA)研究:调查社会经济和文化驱动因素在印度和南非对抗菌素耐药性(AMR)的交叉影响及其对医疗服务获取和医疗行为的影响
Wellcome Open Res. 2024 Jul 24;9:400. doi: 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.20193.1. eCollection 2024.
8
Improving maternal health literacy among low-income pregnant women: A systematic review.提高低收入孕妇的孕产妇健康素养:一项系统综述。
Narra J. 2024 Aug;4(2):e886. doi: 10.52225/narra.v4i2.886. Epub 2024 Aug 8.
9
Closing the gap? Results-based financing and socio-economic-related inequalities in maternal health outcomes in Zimbabwe.弥合差距?津巴布韦基于结果的融资与社会经济相关不平等对孕产妇健康结局的影响。
Health Policy Plan. 2024 Nov 14;39(10):1022-1031. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czae080.
10
Should we prioritise children 6-23 months of age for vitamin A supplementation? Case study of West and Central Africa.我们应该将6至23个月大的儿童作为维生素A补充剂的优先补充对象吗?西非和中非的案例研究。
BMJ Nutr Prev Health. 2024 Feb 6;7(1):88-94. doi: 10.1136/bmjnph-2023-000711. eCollection 2024.
综述:减少健康不平等策略的研究
Int J Equity Health. 2020 Oct 28;19(1):192. doi: 10.1186/s12939-020-01299-w.
4
Are inequities decreasing? Birth registration for children under five in low-income and middle-income countries, 1999-2016.不平等现象正在减少吗?1999 - 2016年低收入和中等收入国家五岁以下儿童的出生登记情况。
BMJ Glob Health. 2019 Dec 16;4(6):e001926. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2019-001926. eCollection 2019.
5
How women are treated during facility-based childbirth in four countries: a cross-sectional study with labour observations and community-based surveys.在四个国家中,医疗机构分娩期间女性的待遇:一项带有分娩观察和社区调查的横断面研究。
Lancet. 2019 Nov 9;394(10210):1750-1763. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31992-0. Epub 2019 Oct 8.
6
The Inverse Equity Hypothesis: Analyses of Institutional Deliveries in 286 National Surveys.反向公平假说:286 项国家调查中机构分娩的分析。
Am J Public Health. 2018 Apr;108(4):464-471. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2017.304277. Epub 2018 Feb 22.
7
Countdown to 2030: tracking progress towards universal coverage for reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health.倒计时 2030:追踪实现生殖、孕产妇、新生儿和儿童健康普遍覆盖的进展。
Lancet. 2018 Apr 14;391(10129):1538-1548. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30104-1. Epub 2018 Jan 31.
8
The Health Gap: The Challenge of an Unequal World: the argument.《健康差距:不平等世界的挑战》:论点
Int J Epidemiol. 2017 Aug 1;46(4):1312-1318. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyx163.
9
Why invest, and what it will take to improve breastfeeding practices?为何要投资,以及需要采取哪些措施来改善母乳喂养做法?
Lancet. 2016 Jan 30;387(10017):491-504. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01044-2.
10
Breastfeeding in the 21st century: epidemiology, mechanisms, and lifelong effect.21 世纪的母乳喂养:流行病学、机制和终身效应。
Lancet. 2016 Jan 30;387(10017):475-90. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01024-7.