Measuring Health Inequalities Using the Robin Hood Index: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.

IF 2.2
Georgios Farantos, Athanasios Pitis, Maria Diamantopoulou, Fotini Tzavella
{"title":"Measuring Health Inequalities Using the Robin Hood Index: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Georgios Farantos, Athanasios Pitis, Maria Diamantopoulou, Fotini Tzavella","doi":"10.3390/epidemiologia6030035","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background/Objectives:</b> Although the Robin Hood Index (RHI) is increasingly used to quantify geographic health inequality and guide resource redistribution, empirical evidence on whether higher physician density reduces RHI-measured inequality remains limited. This study systematically reviews and meta-analyzes RHI-based research to assess the association between physician distribution and health inequalities. <b>Methods:</b> We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies using the RHI to evaluate health inequalities, without restrictions on country or publication date. Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024496486), we searched PubMed, Scopus, and OpenGrey literature, extracted data on physician density and RHI outcomes, and conducted a meta-analysis. Odds ratios (ORs), ln(OR), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated, and risk of bias was assessed using the Robvis tool. <b>Results:</b> Seventeen studies covering 720 regions and 1.07 billion individuals were included. Three clusters emerged: physician redistribution (10 studies), poverty-mortality associations (six studies), and systematic reviews (one study). Physician redistribution was strongly associated with increased inequality and policy attention (r = 0.73; <i>p</i> = 0.0038). Meta-analysis of eight redistribution studies yielded a pooled OR of 1.24 (95% CI: 0.54-2.86), consistent in sensitivity analysis (OR = 1.26; 95% CI: 0.56-2.89). Poverty-mortality studies also showed a correlation with the number of variables considered (r = 0.59; <i>p</i> = 0.022). <b>Conclusions:</b> A greater physician supply is associated with increased health inequalities, with statistical support but limited certainty. Methodological heterogeneity in RHI-based studies constrains comparability. Standardized methodologies and broader analytic models are needed to inform research and guide health policy.</p>","PeriodicalId":72944,"journal":{"name":"Epidemiolgia (Basel, Switzerland)","volume":"6 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12285989/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epidemiolgia (Basel, Switzerland)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/epidemiologia6030035","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Although the Robin Hood Index (RHI) is increasingly used to quantify geographic health inequality and guide resource redistribution, empirical evidence on whether higher physician density reduces RHI-measured inequality remains limited. This study systematically reviews and meta-analyzes RHI-based research to assess the association between physician distribution and health inequalities. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies using the RHI to evaluate health inequalities, without restrictions on country or publication date. Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024496486), we searched PubMed, Scopus, and OpenGrey literature, extracted data on physician density and RHI outcomes, and conducted a meta-analysis. Odds ratios (ORs), ln(OR), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated, and risk of bias was assessed using the Robvis tool. Results: Seventeen studies covering 720 regions and 1.07 billion individuals were included. Three clusters emerged: physician redistribution (10 studies), poverty-mortality associations (six studies), and systematic reviews (one study). Physician redistribution was strongly associated with increased inequality and policy attention (r = 0.73; p = 0.0038). Meta-analysis of eight redistribution studies yielded a pooled OR of 1.24 (95% CI: 0.54-2.86), consistent in sensitivity analysis (OR = 1.26; 95% CI: 0.56-2.89). Poverty-mortality studies also showed a correlation with the number of variables considered (r = 0.59; p = 0.022). Conclusions: A greater physician supply is associated with increased health inequalities, with statistical support but limited certainty. Methodological heterogeneity in RHI-based studies constrains comparability. Standardized methodologies and broader analytic models are needed to inform research and guide health policy.

用罗宾汉指数衡量健康不平等:荟萃分析的系统回顾。
背景/目的:虽然罗宾汉指数(RHI)越来越多地用于量化地理卫生不平等并指导资源再分配,但关于更高的医生密度是否会减少RHI测量的不平等的经验证据仍然有限。本研究系统地回顾和荟萃分析了基于rhi的研究,以评估医生分布与健康不平等之间的关系。方法:我们对使用RHI评估健康不平等的研究进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析,不受国家或出版日期的限制。遵循PRISMA 2020指南并在PROSPERO注册(CRD42024496486),我们检索了PubMed、Scopus和OpenGrey文献,提取了医生密度和RHI结果的数据,并进行了荟萃分析。计算比值比(ORs)、ln(OR)和95%置信区间(CIs),并使用Robvis工具评估偏倚风险。结果:共纳入17项研究,涵盖720个地区和10.7亿人。出现了三个集群:医生再分配(10项研究)、贫困死亡率关联(6项研究)和系统评价(1项研究)。医师再分配与不平等加剧和政策关注密切相关(r = 0.73;P = 0.0038)。8项再分配研究的荟萃分析得出合并OR为1.24 (95% CI: 0.54-2.86),与敏感性分析一致(OR = 1.26;95% ci: 0.56-2.89)。贫困死亡率研究也显示与考虑的变量数量相关(r = 0.59;P = 0.022)。结论:更多的医生供应与健康不平等的增加有关,有统计支持,但确定性有限。基于rha的研究方法的异质性限制了可比性。需要标准化的方法和更广泛的分析模型来为研究提供信息和指导卫生政策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
7 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信