Application of the concept ‘avoidable mortality’ in assessing the socioeconomic status related inequalities in health: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Avoidable mortality is widely used by public health researchers to measure population health, and many related methodologies have been proposed for doing so. This scoping review presents a comprehensive view of global peer-reviewed and grey literature exploring the association between socioeconomic status (SES) and avoidable mortality. Methods We searched Ovid Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science to find articles that investigated SES inequalities in avoidable mortality. We limited our review to articles in English published between 2000 and 2020. For grey literature, we searched leading global and Canadian health information websites. We extracted data on different study characteristics, avoidable mortality definition, SES indicator, method of analysis of the association between avoidable mortality and SES, and main findings of the studies. Results We identified 34 articles to review, including 29 scientific papers and 5 grey literature documents. The findings of the selected articles consistently indicate a negative association between SES and avoidable mortality rates. Studies have not all used the same definitions of avoidable mortality or SES nor operationalized them in the same way. Conclusion Our review highlights the absence of a globally standard definition in avoidable mortality health equity research. Additional work to establish a standardized definition is crucial for supporting global comparability.
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 | 0.014 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".