Government efforts and reforms in health financing systems in various countries are aimed at achieving universal health coverage. Household spending on healthcare plays a very important role in achieving this goal. The aim of this systematic review was to assess out-of-pocket health expenditure inequalities measured by the FIA across different territories, in the context of achieving UHC by 2030. A comprehensive systematic search was conducted in the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases to identify original quantitative and mixed-method studies published in the English language between 2016 and 2022. A total of 336 articles were initially identified, and after the screening process, 15 articles were included in the systematic review, following the removal of duplicates and articles not meeting the inclusion criteria. Despite the overall regressivity, insurance systems have generally improved population coverage and reduced inequality in out-of-pocket health expenditures among the employed population, but regional studies highlight the importance of examining the situation at a micro level. The results of the study provide further evidence supporting the notion that healthcare financing systems relying less on public funding and direct tax financing and more on private payments are associated with a higher prevalence of catastrophic health expenditures and demonstrate a more regressive pattern in terms of healthcare financing, highlighting the need for policy interventions to address these inequities. Governments face significant challenges in achieving universal health coverage due to inequalities experienced by financially vulnerable populations, including high out-of-pocket payments for pharmaceutical goods, informal charges, and regional disparities in healthcare financing administration.

Despite decades of social epidemiologic research, health inequities remain pervasive and ubiquitous in Canada and elsewhere. One reason may be our use of socioeconomic measurement, which has often relied on single point-in-time exposures. To explore the extent to which researchers have incorporated dynamic socioeconomic measurement into cardiovascular health outcome evaluations, we performed a narrative review. We estimated the prevalence of socioeconomic longitudinal cardiovascular research studies that identified socioeconomic exposures at 2 or more points in time between the years of 2019 and 2023. We defined cardiovascular outcome studies as those that examined coronary artery disease, myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome, stroke, heart failure, cardiac arrhythmias, cardiac death, cardiometabolic factors, transient ischemic attacks, peripheral artery disease, or hypertension. Socioeconomic exposures included individual income, neighbourhood income, intergenerational social mobility, education, occupation, insurance status, and economic security. Seven percent of socioeconomic cardiovascular outcome studies have measured socioeconomic status at 2 or more points in time throughout the follow-up period, hypothesized mechanisms by which dynamic socioeconomic measures affected outcome focused on social mobility, accumulation, and critical period theories. Insights, implications, and future directions are discussed, in which we highlight ways in which postal code data can be better used methodologically as a dynamic socioeconomic measure. Future research must incorporate dynamic socioeconomic measurement to better inform root causes, interventions, and health-system designs if health equity is to be improved.

The objectives of this review were to identify the population groups most frequently studied, to determine the methods and techniques most commonly used to show health inequities, and to identify the most frequent socioeconomic and health indicators used in the studies on health inequities due to socioeconomic inequalities that have been carried out on the Spanish healthcare system. A scoping review was carried out of the studies conducted in the Spanish State and published in literature since 2004, after the publication of the Law of Cohesion and Quality of the National Health System. The PRISMA extension for scoping reviews was followed. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the critical reading guides of the Joanna Briggs Institute and an adaptation of the STROBE guide for ecological studies. A total of 58 articles out of 811 articles were included. Most of the articles were (77.59%, n = 45) cross-sectional studies, followed by ecological studies (13.8%, n = 8). The population group used was uneven, while the main geographical area under investigation was the whole state (51.7%, n = 30) compared to other territorial distributions (48.3%, n = 28). The studies used a multitude of health and socioeconomic indicators, highlighting self-perception of health (31.03%, n = 19) and social class (50%, n = 29). The relationship between better health and better socioeconomic status is evident. However, there is variability in the populations, methods, and indicators used to study health equity in Spain. Future health research and policies require greater systematization by public institutions and greater cooperation among researchers from disciplines such as sociology, economics, and health.

Ultra-processed food (UPF) intake is associated with increased non-communicable disease risks. However, systematic reports on sociodemographic predictors of UPF intake are lacking. This review aimed to understand UPF consumption based on sociodemographic factors, using nationally representative cohorts. The systematic review was pre-registered (PROSPERO:CRD42022360199), following PRISMA guidelines. PubMed/MEDLINE searches (‘ultra-processed/ultraprocessed’ and ‘ultra-processing/ultraprocessing’) until 7 September 2022 retrieved 1131 results. Inclusion criteria included: observational, nationally representative adult samples, in English, in peer-reviewed journals, assessing the association between sociodemographics and individual-level UPF intake defined by the NOVA classification. Exclusion criteria included: not nationally representative, no assessment of sociodemographics and individual-level UPF intake defined by NOVA. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS). Fifty-five papers were included, spanning thirty-two countries. All thirteen sociodemographic variables identified were significantly associated with UPF intake in one or more studies. Significant differences in UPF intake were seen across age, race/ethnicity, rural/urbanisation, food insecurity, income and region, with up to 10–20% differences in UPF intake (% total energy). Higher UPF intakes were associated with younger age, urbanisation and being unmarried, single, separated or divorced. Education, income and socioeconomic status showed varying associations, depending on country. Multivariate analyses indicated that associations were independent of other sociodemographics. Household status and gender were generally not associated with UPF intake. NOS averaged 5·7/10. Several characteristics are independently associated with high UPF intake, indicating large sociodemographic variation in non-communicable disease risk. These findings highlight significant public health inequalities associated with UPF intake, and the urgent need for policy action to minimise social injustice-related health inequalities.

BACKGROUND: Dialysis is a life-sustaining treatment for patients with advanced kidney failure, but it is extremely burdensome. Despite this, there are very few tools available to assess treatment burden within the dialysis population.
OBJECTIVE: To conduct a scoping review of generic and disease-specific measures of treatment burden in chronic kidney disease, and assess their suitability for use within the dialysis population.
METHODS: We searched CINAHL, MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library for kidney disease-specific measures of treatment burden. Studies were initially included if they described the development, validation or use of a treatment burden measure or associated concept (e.g., measures of treatment satisfaction, quality of life, illness intrusiveness, disease burden etc.) in adult patients with chronic kidney disease. We also updated a previous scoping review exploring measures of treatment burden in chronic disease to identify generic treatment burden measures.
RESULTS: One-hundred and two measures of treatment burden or associated concepts were identified. Four direct measures and two indirect measures of treatment burden were assessed, using adapted established criteria, for suitability for use within the dialysis population. The researchers outlined eight key dimensions of treatment burden: medication, financial, administrative, lifestyle, health care, time/travel, dialysis-specific factors, and health inequality. None of the measures adequately assessed all dimensions of treatment burden.
CONCLUSIONS: Current measures of treatment burden in dialysis are inadequate to capture the spectrum of issues that matter to patients. There is a need for dialysis-specific burdens and health inequality to be assessed when exploring treatment burden to advance patient care.

Residents of lower socioeconomic status (SES) areas are at a higher risk of overweight/obesity than those from higher SES areas. Built environment attributes may mitigate such inequalities. This systematic review synthesised findings of studies examining built environment attributes as potential moderators of the associations between area-level SES and overweight/obesity in adults. From five databases, nine eligible studies were identified. The SES-overweight/obesity relationship was stronger in inner areas and suburbs of large cities, while it was weaker in more rural areas. Two studies examined walkability and reported contrasting findings: no moderation in one and marginally significant moderation (less inequality in higher walkability areas) in the other. No evidence of moderation was found for street connectivity, population density, the food environment, access to physical activity facilities and several perceived environmental attributes. Further research is needed on other built environment attributes (e.g., access to, quantity and quality of green spaces, active transport features), and ideally using prospective study designs and objective makers of adiposity.

BACKGROUND: Health equity can lead to disparities in cancer screening, treatment, and mortality. This systematic review aims to identify and describe interventions that used video or DVD formats to reduce health inequity in cancer screening and review the effectiveness of such interventions in increasing screening rates compared to usual care conditions.
METHODS: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane databases for randomized control trials (RCTs) published until 18/01/2023 that compared intervention versus usual care control groups, with the percentage of cancer screening uptake during follow-up as an outcome. The risk of Bias was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration tool.
RESULTS: After screening 4201 abstracts, 192 full texts were assessed for eligibility and 18 were included that focused on colorectal (n = 9), cervical (n = 5), breast (n = 5), and prostate (n = 1) cancer screening. All were based in the USA except one and most focused on ethnicity/race, while some included low-income populations. Most of the video interventions used to increase cervical cancer screening reported positive results. Studies aimed at increasing mammography uptake were mostly effective only in specific groups of participants, such as low-income or less-educated African American women. Results for colorectal cancer screening were conflicting. Videos that were culturally tailored or used emotive format were generally more effective than information-only videos.
CONCLUSIONS: Video interventions to increase cancer screening among populations with low screening uptake show some positive effects, though results are mixed. Interventions that use individual and cultural tailoring of the educational material should be further developed and investigated outside of the USA.

Disadvantaged populations (such as women from minority ethnic groups and those with social complexity) are at an increased risk of poor outcomes and experiences. Inequalities in health outcomes include preterm birth, maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality, and poor-quality care. The impact of interventions is unclear for this population, in high-income countries (HIC). The review aimed to identify and evaluate the current evidence related to targeted health and social care service interventions in HICs which can improve health inequalities experienced by childbearing women and infants at disproportionate risk of poor outcomes and experiences.
Twelve databases searched for studies across all HICs, from any methodological design. The search concluded on 8/11/22. The inclusion criteria included interventions that targeted disadvantaged populations which provided a component of clinical care that differed from standard maternity care.
Forty six index studies were included. Countries included Australia, Canada, Chile, Hong Kong, UK and USA. A narrative synthesis was undertaken, and results showed three intervention types: midwifery models of care, interdisciplinary care, and community-centred services. These intervention types have been delivered singularly but also in combination of each other demonstrating overlapping features. Overall, results show interventions had positive associations with primary (maternal, perinatal, and infant mortality) and secondary outcomes (experiences and satisfaction, antenatal care coverage, access to care, quality of care, mode of delivery, analgesia use in labour, preterm birth, low birth weight, breastfeeding, family planning, immunisations) however significance and impact vary. Midwifery models of care took an interpersonal and holistic approach as they focused on continuity of carer, home visiting, culturally and linguistically appropriate care and accessibility. Interdisciplinary care took a structural approach, to coordinate care for women requiring multi-agency health and social services. Community-centred services took a place-based approach with interventions that suited the need of its community and their norms.
Targeted interventions exist in HICs, but these vary according to the context and infrastructure of standard maternity care. Multi-interventional approaches could enhance a targeted approach for at risk populations, in particular combining midwifery models of care with community-centred approaches, to enhance accessibility, earlier engagement, and increased attendance.
PROSPERO Registration number: CRD42020218357.

As part of its commitment to advance health equity, the World Health Organization (WHO) has a developed area of work to promote and strengthen health inequality monitoring. This includes an emphasis on the collection, analysis and use of disaggregated health data, which are central to evidence-informed decision making. The aim of this paper is to review WHO\'s work on health inequality monitoring, namely the 2022-27 Inequality monitoring and analysis strategy and corresponding activities, resources and tools. The strategy has three goals pertaining to: strengthening capacity for health inequality monitoring; generating and disseminating the latest evidence on health inequality and supporting data disaggregation; and developing and refining health inequality monitoring methods, resources and best practices. In alignment with these goals, WHO has published reference materials focused on conceptual approaches to health inequality monitoring, which are applied in the global State of Inequality report series. The Health Inequality Monitoring eLearning channel on OpenWHO and capacity building workshops and webinars facilitate the uptake and application of inequality monitoring practices across diverse settings and stakeholders. A key tool available to support the analysis and reporting aspects of health inequality monitoring is the Health Equity Assessment Toolkit (HEAT) application, which allows users to explore data interactively. The Health Inequality Data Repository, a collection of the largest publicly available database of disaggregated data from around the globe, further enables inequality monitoring and analyses. This collection of resources is an important contribution to promote health inequality monitoring across diverse settings. The uptake of evidence from health inequality monitoring remains crucial to the advancement of equity as part of global health and development initiatives.

Background: The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on human life has led to profound consequences in almost all societies worldwide, and this includes its significant impact on all aspects of health. Health equity has been among the main challenges in any healthcare system. However, with the COVID-19 crisis worsening health inequalities, the need to prioritize health equity in upstream national and international plans must receive scholarly attention. Therefore, this paper reports the findings of a review of the current synthesized evidence about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on health equity. Methods: This is a comprehensive review in which we retrieved relevant studies during the period starting from 12/01/2019 to 01/15/2021 are retrieved from various databases. The PRISMA flow diagram and a narrative approach are used for synthesizing the evidence. Results: We initially retrieved 1173 studies, and after a primary quality appraisal process, 40 studies entered the final phase of analysis. The included studies were categorized into five main outcome variables: Accessibility (95%), Utilization (65.8%), Financial protection: 15 (36.5%), Poverty (31.7%), and Racism (21.9%) Conclusion: COVID-19 pandemic has been the most devastating global challenge in recent history. While the COVID-19 crisis is still unfolding, its multidimensional adverse effects are yet to be revealed. Nevertheless, some people, e.g., the elderly, minorities, as well as marginalized and poor persons, have suffered the COVID-19 consequences more than others. In line with the whole government/whole society approach, we advocate that governments need to strengthen their special efforts to reduce the extra burden of the pandemic on the most vulnerable populations.