MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3093959014 · doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2020-003493

Geospatial evaluation of trade-offs between equity in physical access to healthcare and health systems efficiency

2020· article· en· W3093959014 on OpenAlexaff
Hari S. Iyer, John Flanigan, Nicholas Wolf, Lee F. Schroeder, Susan Horton, Márcia C. Castro, Timothy R. Rebbeck

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Global Health · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthHarvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
KeywordsTanzaniaEquity (law)GeographyGeospatial analysisHealth carePopulationSpatial analysisPopulation healthScan statisticBusinessSocioeconomicsDemographyEnvironmental healthMedicineStatisticsEconomic growthCartographyEconomicsPolitical scienceEnvironmental planning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Decisions regarding the geographical placement of healthcare services require consideration of trade-offs between equity and efficiency, but few empirical assessments are available. We applied a novel geospatial framework to study these trade-offs in four African countries. METHODS: Geolocation data on population density (a surrogate for efficiency), health centres and cancer referral centres in Kenya, Malawi, Tanzania and Rwanda were obtained from online databases. Travel time to the closest facility (a surrogate for equity) was estimated with 1 km resolution using the Access Mod 5 least cost distance algorithm. We studied associations between district-level average population density and travel time to closest facility for each country using Pearson's correlation, and spatial autocorrelation using the Global Moran's I statistic. Geographical clusters of districts with inefficient resource allocation were identified using the bivariate local indicator of spatial autocorrelation. RESULTS: Population density was inversely associated with travel time for all countries and levels of the health system (Pearson's correlation range, health centres: -0.89 to -0.71; cancer referral centres: -0.92 to -0.43), favouring efficiency. For health centres, negative spatial autocorrelation (geographical clustering of dissimilar values of population density and travel time) was weaker in Rwanda (-0.310) and Tanzania (-0.292), countries with explicit policies supporting equitable access to rural healthcare, relative to Kenya (-0.579) and Malawi (-0.543). Stronger spatial autocorrelation was observed for cancer referral centres (Rwanda: -0.341; Tanzania: -0.259; Kenya: -0.595; Malawi: -0.666). Significant geographical clusters of sparsely populated districts with long travel times to care were identified across countries. CONCLUSION: Negative spatial correlations suggested that the geographical distribution of health services favoured efficiency over equity, but spatial autocorrelation measures revealed more equitable geographical distribution of facilities in certain countries. These findings suggest that even when prioritising efficiency, thoughtful decisions regarding geographical allocation could increase equitable physical access to services.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.008
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.333
GPT teacher head0.618
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations38
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Global HealthSame topicGlobal Health Workforce IssuesFrench-language works237,207