Underlying Equity Discourses of the World Health Organization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Globally, increasing attention has been paid to the concept of equity in the context of health, largely stemming from the work of the World Health Organization (WHO) beginning in the late 1970s with the Declaration of Alma-Ata (WHO, 1978) and more recently following the Commission on the Social Determinants of Health (CSDH, 2008) and their final report in 2008. Despite increasing attention to this issue, there is global ambiguity on the true definition of “health inequity”, “health inequalities”, or “health disparities” (Braveman, 2006, p. 167; Braveman & Gruskin, 2003). Methods/Design: This original scoping review clarifies how the WHO conceptualizes equity. It also identifies the theoretical underpinnings guiding the WHO’s approach to equity and its broader implications. This protocol followed the PRISMA guidelines for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) (Tricco et al., 2018), with details discussed in the full protocol. Discussion: To date, much of the research on health equity globally has been restricted to chronological discussions over time or specific research fields (Borde & Hernández, 2018, p. 3). Therefore, researching the WHO’s approach to equity in terms of alignment with theory and broader normative standpoint(s) becomes increasingly important in addressing a gap in the literature. In addition, because the definition of equity in the context of health has practical implications for its operationalization (Guerra, Borde, & Salgado De Snyder, 2016), this work seeks to clarify in the concept of equity used by the WHO in hopes of moving towards a shared understanding to bridge action [e.g. in measurement and accountability (Braveman & Gruskin, 2003)].
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".