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.
Lancet Glob Health. 2021 Aug;9(8):e1101-e1109. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(21)00204-7. Epub 2021 May 26.
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.
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。
BMC Public Health. 2016-9-12
Lancet Glob Health. 2018-11
BMJ Nutr Prev Health. 2024-2-6
Int J Equity Health. 2020-10-28
Am J Public Health. 2018-2-22
Int J Epidemiol. 2017-8-1