Framing ârural health equityâ and implications for governance: thematic analysis of 51 expert narratives from a global webinar series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: To respond to persisting gaps in health service coverage and health outcomes impacting rural populations globally, governance for rural health equity requires enhanced focus by policymakers, researchers and practitioners. During 2021-22, 51 experts from around the world contributed (as speakers, co-chairs and discussants) to an eight-part webinar series on rural health equity convened by WHO and Rural WONCA, with inputs from partners including the OECD and agencies in the UN Inequalities Task Team subgroup on rural inequalities. The aim of the webinar series was to share technical/operational know-how and lessons learnt for addressing rural health inequities. METHODS: A thematic analysis of all webinar expert narratives was completed by the authors during 2022-23, with the purpose of using the data to conceptually feed into multiple WHO technical and capacity-building products. Following transcription, this entailed familiarization with the data and reflexivity (including on the framework used to inform the series and the researchers' roles), generation of codes, combining codes in categories and themes, further analysis and reporting (alongside amendment of the original framework). The research question was 'What do the 51 expert narratives from the WHO Rural Health Equity eight-part webinar series convey about the framing of rural health equity and related governance approaches?' RESULTS: Expert narratives provided evidence suggesting that the framing of rural health equity needs to account for primary health care-oriented health systems strengthening issues in a way that highlights their indivisible, interrelated and synergistic nature, taking a system-wide approach. Expert narratives pointed to the health sector having an active role in rural development policy, as a platform to leverage action for rural health equity through working across sectors to address social and environmental determinants of health. In framing the equity dimension of rural health equity, there was a clear acknowledgement in expert narratives that the concept comprises inequitable differences both between urban and rural areas and within rural areas. Narratives underlined that a historical lens is required to understand the drivers of rural health inequities, as well as formulate or improve - through participatory approaches - the strategies to overcome them. The narratives shed light on governance issues such as inter- and intrasectorial policy and programming coherence, effective rural-proofing mechanisms, evidence-based decision-making drawing from strengthened equity-oriented information systems, ground-up participatory decision-making approaches, rights-based governance (including for self-determination), and greater accountability for redressing socio-spatial inequities and optimizing rural communities' assets. Findings suggest that unlocking rural health inequities will require the further study of government commitments, governance mechanisms, and capacities to effectively implement measures for territorially balanced development and area-based strategies for equity within and between territories. CONCLUSION: The findings have relevance for the further design of policies, programming, and monitoring and evaluation for rural health equity by national and subnational authorities, as well as for the activities of researchers, WHO, Rural WONCA and partners.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".