Hacia la cobertura sanitaria universal: el papel de la desigualdad nacional en cuanto a riqueza en 28 países del África subsahariana
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To measure within-country wealth-related inequality in the health service coverage gap of maternal and child health indicators in sub-Saharan Africa and quantify its contribution to the national health service coverage gap. METHODS: Coverage data for child and maternal health services in 28 sub-Saharan African countries were obtained from the 2000-2008 Demographic Health Survey. For each country, the national coverage gap was determined for an overall health service coverage index and select individual health service indicators. The data were then additively broken down into the coverage gap in the wealthiest quintile (i.e. the proportion of the quintile lacking a required health service) and the population attributable risk (an absolute measure of within-country wealth-related inequality). FINDINGS: In 26 countries, within-country wealth-related inequality accounted for more than one quarter of the national overall coverage gap. Reducing such inequality could lower this gap by 16% to 56%, depending on the country. Regarding select individual health service indicators, wealth-related inequality was more common in services such as skilled birth attendance and antenatal care, and less so in family planning, measles immunization, receipt of a third dose of vaccine against diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus and treatment of acute respiratory infections in children under 5 years of age. CONCLUSION: The contribution of wealth-related inequality to the child and maternal health service coverage gap differs by country and type of health service, warranting case-specific interventions. Targeted policies are most appropriate where high within-country wealth-related inequality exists, and whole-population approaches, where the health-service coverage gap is high in all quintiles.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".