Equity in health and health care in a decentralised context: evidence from Canada
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The impact of administrative decentralisation on equity in health and health care is an important unresolved issue in the health policy debate. Predictions from the limited theoretical literature and the relevant empirical research are both insufficient to draw any firm conclusions. Many countries are nevertheless experimenting with decentralisation policies in the absence of research evidence. This paper presents an exploratory empirical analysis of decentralisation by investigating the spatial dimensions of health-related equity in Canada, a highly decentralised setting. Using data from the 2001 Canadian Community Health Survey, we apply a decomposition method of the Concentration Index to explore whether income-related inequalities in health and inequities in the use of health care are more likely to be due to gaps between rich and poor Canadian provinces rather than to differences between rich and poor individuals within them. The results show that within area variation is the most important source of income-related health inequality, while income-related inequities in health care use are mostly driven by differences between provinces.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it