Large and persistent subnational inequalities in reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health intervention coverage in sub-Saharan Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Subnational inequalities have received limited attention in the monitoring of progress towards national and global health targets during the past two decades. Yet, such data are often a critical basis for health planning and monitoring in countries, in support of efforts to reach all with essential interventions. Household surveys provide a rich basis for interventions coverage indicators on reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health (RMNCH) at the country first administrative level (regions or provinces). In this paper, we show the large subnational inequalities that exist in RMNCH coverage within 39 countries in sub-Saharan Africa, using a composite coverage index which has been used extensively by Countdown to 2030 for Women's, Children's and Adolescent's Health. The analyses show the wide range of subnational inequality patterns such as low overall national coverage with very large top inequality involving the capital city, intermediate national coverage with bottom inequality in disadvantaged regions, and high coverage in all regions with little inequality. Even though nearly half of the 34 countries with surveys around 2004 and again around 2015 appear to have been successful in reducing subnational inequalities in RMNCH coverage, the general picture shows persistence of large inequalities between subnational units within many countries. Poor governance and conflict settings were identified as potential contributing factors. Major efforts to reduce within-country inequalities are required to reach all women and children with essential interventions.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".