'Issues of equity are also issues of rights': Lessons from experiences in Southern Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Human rights approaches to health have been criticized as antithetical to equity, principally because they are seen to prioritise rights of individuals at the expense of the interests of groups, a core tenet of public health. The objective of this study was to identify how human rights approaches can promote health equity. METHODS: The Network on Equity in Health in Southern Africa undertook an exploration of three regional case studies - antiretroviral access, patient rights charters and civic organization for health. A combination of archival reviews and stakeholder interviews were complemented with a literature review to provide a theoretical framework for the empirical evidence. RESULTS: Critical success factors for equity are the importance of rights approaches addressing the full spectrum from civil and political, through to socio-economic rights, as well as the need to locate rights in a group context. Human rights approaches succeed in achieving health equity when coupled with community engagement in ways that reinforce community capacity, particularly when strengthening the collective agency of its most vulnerable groups. Additionally, human rights approaches provide opportunities for mobilising resources outside the health sector, and must aim to address the public-private divide at local, national and international levels. CONCLUSION: Where it is clear that rights approaches are predicated upon understanding the need to prioritize vulnerable groups and where the way rights are operationalised recognizes the role of agency on the part of those most affected in realising their socio-economic rights, human rights approaches appear to offer powerful tools to support social justice and health equity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".