Measuring Health Equity in Emergency Care Using Routinely Collected Data: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Identifying health care equity indicators is an important first step in integrating the concept of equity into assessments of health care system performance, particularly in emergency care. We conducted a systematic review of administrative data-derived health care equity indicators and their association with socio-economic determinants of health (SEDH) in emergency care settings. Following PRISMA-Equity reporting guidelines, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, PUBMED and Web of Science were searched for relevant studies. The outcomes of interest were indicators of health care equity and the associated SEDH they examine. Among 29 studies identified, 14 equity indicators were identified and grouped into four categories that reflect the patient emergency care pathway. Total emergency department (ED) visits and ambulatory care sensitive condition-related ED visits were the two most frequently used equity indicators. Despite some conflicting results, all identified SEDH (social deprivation, income, education level, social class, insurance coverage and health literacy) are associated with inequalities in access to and use of emergency care. In conclusion, the use of administrative data-derived indicators combined with identified SEDH could improve healthcare equity measurement in emergency care settings across health care systems worldwide.
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 | 0.023 | 0.118 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".