Making health inequality analysis accessible: WHO tools and resources using Microsoft Excel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Addressing health inequity is a central component of the Sustainable Development Goals and a priority of the World Health Organization (WHO). WHO supports countries in strengthening their health information systems in order to better collect, analyze and report health inequality data. Improving information and research about health inequality is crucial to identify and address the inequalities that lead to poorer health outcomes. Building analytical capacities of individuals, particularly in low-resource areas, empowers them to build a stronger evidence-base, leading to more informed policy and programme decision-making. However, health inequality analysis requires a unique set of skills and knowledge. This paper describes three resources developed by WHO to support the analysis of inequality data by non-statistical users using Microsoft Excel, a widely used and accessible software programme. The resources include a practical eLearning course, which trains learners in the preparation and reporting of disaggregated data using Excel, an Excel workbook that takes users step-by-step through the calculation of 21 summary measures of health inequality, and a workbook that automatically calculates these measures with the user's disaggregated dataset. The utility of the resources is demonstrated through an empirical example.
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 | 0.015 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.016 |
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".