Constitutional rights to health, public health and medical care: The status of health protections in 191 countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
United Nations (UN) member states have universally recognised the right to health in international agreements, but protection of this right at the national level remains incomplete. This article examines the level and scope of constitutional protection of specific rights to public health and medical care, as well as the broad right to health. We analysed health rights in the constitutions of 191 UN countries in 2007 and 2011. We examined how rights protections varied across the year of constitutional adoption; national income group and region; and for vulnerable groups within each country. A minority of the countries guaranteed the rights to public health (14%), medical care (38%) and overall health (36%) in their constitutions in 2011. Free medical care was constitutionally protected in 9% of the countries. Thirteen per cent of the constitutions guaranteed children's right to health or medical care, 6% did so for persons with disabilities and 5% for each of the elderly and the socio-economically disadvantaged. Valuable next steps include regular monitoring of the national protection of health rights recognised in international agreements, analyses of the impact of health rights on health outcomes and longitudinal multi-level studies to assess whether specific formulations of the rights have greater impact.
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 | 0.015 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".