Back

From here to there: changing the way we evaluate equitable coverage of health services

Hagedorn, B.; Cooper, J.; Mishra, A.

2026-07-13 health policy
10.64898/2026.07.09.26356719 medRxiv
Show abstract

Reducing inequality in health-service coverage is central to universal health coverage, but the evidence base on how to design successful equity-oriented policies is inadequate to inform decision makers and tends to rely on case studies. Further, conventional measures of inequality capture a single timepoint, one service at a time; this obscures how inequity evolves as coverage increases. We reframe equity as a trajectory and ask how it evolves as total coverage rises, comparing systematically across countries and health areas. Using 132 Demographic and Health Surveys from 22 low- and middle-income countries (1990-2023), we estimated coverage at the subnational (admin1) level by wealth quintile for six representative maternal and child health indicators. For each country-indicator pair, we fit a natural cubic spline of the wealthiest-poorest gap against total regional coverage, extracted features describing each curve, and grouped them using hierarchical clustering. This yielded three archetypes: large rollout gaps (mean peak ~58%), modest but persistent inequality (~30%), and minimal inequality that sometimes reversed to favor the poor (~17%). Most trajectories traced an inverted U pattern, widening early, then closing only near 100% regional coverage. How a service is delivered, more than where, drove its path: institutional delivery was the most inequitable (15 of 20 countries with large gaps), whereas one-touch and campaign-delivered services such as bed nets and vaccines rarely produced large gaps and were sometimes pro-poor. Despite this, some countries achieved equity across nearly all services, indicating that proactive governance may be able to overcome structural challenges to achieve equitable outcomes. For policy, these archetypes let programs anticipate which groups will be left behind and when, replace assumed scenarios with empirical ones in impact models, and target investment early to ensure that new services achieve more equitable coverage.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Nature Human Behaviour
95 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.4%
2
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 9%
10.6%
3
The Lancet Global Health
27 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.8%
4
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 23%
7.2%
5
Nature Medicine
125 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.7%
50% of probability mass above
6
BMJ Global Health
113 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
6.7%
7
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 27%
5.4%
8
Social Science & Medicine
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.2%
9
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 36%
3.1%
10
The Lancet Regional Health - Americas
22 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.4%
11
Nature Aging
60 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
2.1%
12
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2444 papers in training set
Top 24%
2.1%
13
PLOS Global Public Health
344 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.7%
14
JAMA Network Open
130 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
15
Health Policy
11 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.1%
16
eClinicalMedicine
77 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
17
SSM - Population Health
17 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.0%
18
BMC Public Health
158 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%
19
International Journal of Epidemiology
88 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
20
Frontiers in Public Health
148 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
21
Vaccine
203 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
22
Science
477 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.8%
23
PNAS Nexus
159 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
24
Epidemics
116 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
25
Medical Decision Making
12 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.6%
26
Nature
645 papers in training set
Top 11%
0.6%