Table 5 Benefits of combined approach for measuring equity in health outcomes and intervention exposure
Equity Metric | Disadvantage of Using Method Alone | Benefit of Combined Method |
|---|---|---|
Concentration Index | Challenging to assess programmatic significance of a statistically significant concentration index | Threshold still unknown, but more data provided to understand programmatic significance, so equity and progress towards program goals can be measured simultaneously |
| 听 | Cannot detect non-linear outcomes | Graphical analyses of quintiles show non-linear differences in outcomes |
| 听 | Does not indicate which proportion of population outcome or if outcome is high or low | Wealth quintile graphs show levels of outcome in population |
| 听 | Does not indicate how the wealth distribution of the sample compares with the national population | Use of standard asset list and DHS data as reference population shows wealth distribution relative to broader population |
Proportion by Wealth Quintile | Challenging to do longitudinal, multi-country, or multi-outcome comparisons | Concentration index as a summary number enables statistical comparisons between multiple datasets |
| 听 | Does not give a conclusive determination of equity | Provides a numerical estimate of equity with statistical significance, with the stratification by wealth quintile providing a comprehensive and nuanced equity assessment of the outcome measure |