Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Advance Access
    • Archive
    • Supplements
      • The Challenge Initiative Platform
      • Call for Abstracts
      • The Responsive Feedback Approach
    • Topic Collections
  • For Authors
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Publish a Supplement
    • Promote Your Article
    • Resources for Writing Journal Articles
  • About
    • About GHSP
    • Editorial Team
    • Advisory Board
    • FAQs
    • Instructions for Reviewers
  • Webinars
    • Local Voices Webinar
    • Connecting Creators and Users of Knowledge
    • Publishing About Programs in GHSP
  • Other Useful Sites
    • GH eLearning
    • GHJournal Search

User menu

  • My Alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Global Health: Science and Practice
  • Other Useful Sites
    • GH eLearning
    • GHJournal Search
  • My Alerts

Global Health: Science and Practice

Dedicated to what works in global health programs

Advanced Search

  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Advance Access
    • Archive
    • Supplements
    • Topic Collections
  • For Authors
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Publish a Supplement
    • Promote Your Article
    • Resources for Writing Journal Articles
  • About
    • About GHSP
    • Editorial Team
    • Advisory Board
    • FAQs
    • Instructions for Reviewers
  • Webinars
    • Local Voices Webinar
    • Connecting Creators and Users of Knowledge
    • Publishing About Programs in GHSP
  • Alerts
  • Visit GHSP on Facebook
  • Follow GHSP on Twitter
  • RSS
  • Find GHSP on LinkedIn
EDITORIAL
Open Access

Abbreviating the Wealth Index to Measure Equity in Health Programs More Easily

Thomas W Pullum
Global Health: Science and Practice March 2016, 4(1):4-5; https://doi.org/10.9745/GHSP-D-16-00028
Thomas W Pullum
aICF International, The Demographic and Health Surveys Program, Rockville, MD, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
PreviousNext
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • Comments
  • PDF
Loading

Efforts to simplify the construction of the DHS wealth index are encouraged (while recognizing it is constructed differently in each country), but attempts to assess equity in health programs should bear in mind that it is not sufficient to calculate the wealth index just for the participants in the program. The quintile distributions can vary dramatically within sub-populations. Assessments of equity require knowledge of the distribution of potential participants as well as actual participants.

See related articles by Chakraborty and by Ergo

This issue of Global Health: Science and Practice (GHSP) includes 2 articles—one by Chakraborty and colleagues1 and the other by Ergo and colleagues2—that describe how the well-known Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) wealth index can be adapted for the purpose of assessing equity in health programs. DHS constructs the index by combining information about a large number of household assets in a principal components analysis, interpreting the first principal component as a continuous single dimension of wealth, and then identifying cut-points that break that scale into 5 segments, known as wealth quintiles.

The strategies used to adapt the DHS wealth index in the 2 GHSP articles are different from each other, but both are able to produce a good approximation to the wealth index and wealth quintiles with a much smaller number of indicators. In the article by Ergo et al., the original wealth index is trimmed by dropping the indicators with the smallest loadings in successive recalculations of the first principal component. In the article by Chakraborty et al., the indicators are trimmed by a combination of statistical criteria and judgments by a panel of experts. Realizing that the DHS wealth index is constructed differently in each country, both strategies could be applied to a country that had recently had a DHS survey (or Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey [MICS]), working with the household data files and complete information about how the wealth index was constructed in that survey, including the numerical values of the cut-points.

The authors of the 2 GHSP articles propose that the smaller set of indicators could be obtained with a much-reduced questionnaire that would be administered to the beneficiaries of an intervention, and then the simplified wealth quintiles would be constructed to determine the degree of equity in the intervention. Neither paper actually provides a summary index of equity, but both imply that an intervention would be equitable if the number of beneficiaries were the same, or nearly the same, in all 5 quintiles.

Some Caveats: Wealth Quintile Distribution Varies Across Sub-Populations and Comparisons Across Quintiles Need to Account for Both Beneficiaries and Potential Beneficiaries

My purpose here is not to critique these constructions of a simplified wealth index, but to set up a warning to the authors or others who may apply it to assess the equity of interventions. The distribution across wealth quintiles is uniform for a DHS survey, in the sense that there will be exactly the same number of weighted usual resident individuals in the full household sample in each of the 5 quintiles. Deviations from 20% in each quintile are negligible and are only due to possible ties at specific values of the continuous scale. For virtually any sub-population, however, the wealth quintiles do not identify 5 equally-sized categories. For example, in most DHS surveys, few urban respondents are in the bottom 2 quintiles and few rural respondents are in the top 2 quintiles. In many surveys, more than 20% of children under age 18 are in the bottom quintile and more than 20% of adults are in the top quintile, because of the tendency for poorer households to have more children. The distribution across quintiles can vary enormously from one region of a country to another.

Further, it is impossible to assess equity in an intervention by examining only the distribution of the beneficiaries across the 5 quintiles. A valid assessment of equity would also require knowledge of the distribution of the potential beneficiaries, so that a comparison can be made of the differences between the people who use the program and those who are eligible, or are in the catchment area, etc., but do not use the program. For a familiar analogy, it is impossible to determine whether a college admissions process has been fair with respect to ethnicity by knowing only the ethnic distribution of the acceptances. Fairness, or equity, would require knowledge of the ethnic distribution of the pool of applicants, so that a comparison could be made between those who were accepted and those who were rejected. The ethnic distribution of applicants could not safely be assumed to be the same as the ethnic distribution of the general population.

An alternative way to assess equity is to measure the level of an attribute within quintiles and then compare those levels. This approach is illustrated in the GHSP article by Jorge Ugaz et al.3 One outcome of interest in that article is the percentage of users of modern methods of contraception who are using long-acting methods. This percentage is reported within each of the wealth quintiles. Data come from several DHS surveys, using the original wealth index constructed for each survey. Variations in the percentages across wealth quintiles can be interpreted as evidence of inequities in access to long-acting methods. Similarly, in the college admissions analogy, variations in acceptance rates from one ethnic group of applicants to another can be interpreted as a lack of fairness in the admissions procedure.

Improving equity in programs is a highly worthy goal. Efforts such as those by Ergo et al. and Chakraborty et al. to simplify the measurement of relative wealth and equity are commendable, but an assessment of equity in health interventions requires information about those who access the intervention and those who are eligible but do not access it. In one way or another, any application of a simplified wealth index to assess equity must confront this requirement.

Assessment of equity in health interventions requires information about those who access the intervention as well as those who are eligible but do not access it.

Notes

Competing Interests: None declared.

Cite this article as: Pullum TW. Abbreviating the wealth index to measure equity in health programs more easily. Glob Health Sci Pact. 2016;4(1):4-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.9745/GHSP-D-16-00028

  • © Pullum.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly cited. To view a copy of the license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/. When linking to this article, please use the following permanent link: http://dx.doi.org/10.9745/GHSP-D-16-00028.

REFERENCES

  1. ↵
    1. Chakraborty NM,
    2. Fry K,
    3. Behl R,
    4. Longfield K
    . Simplified asset indices to measure wealth and equity in health programs: a reliability and validity analysis using survey data from 16 countries. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2016;4(1):141–154. doi:10.9745/GHSP-D-15-00384
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  2. ↵
    1. Ergo A,
    2. Ritter J,
    3. Gwatkin DR,
    4. Binkin N
    . Measurement of health program equity made easier: validation of a simplified asset index using program data from Honduras and Senegal. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2016;4(1):155–164. doi:10.9745/GHSP-D-15-00385
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  3. ↵
    1. Ugaz JI,
    2. Chatterji M,
    3. Gribble JN,
    4. Banke K
    . Is household wealth associated with use of long-acting reversible and permanent methods of contraception? A multi-country analysis. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2016;4(1):43–54. doi:10.9745/GHSP-D-15-00234
    OpenUrlCrossRef
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Global Health: Science and Practice: 4 (1)
Global Health: Science and Practice
Vol. 4, No. 1
March 21, 2016
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover
  • Index by Author
  • Complete Issue (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about Global Health: Science and Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Abbreviating the Wealth Index to Measure Equity in Health Programs More Easily
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Global Health: Science and Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the Global Health: Science and Practice web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Abbreviating the Wealth Index to Measure Equity in Health Programs More Easily
Thomas W Pullum
Global Health: Science and Practice Mar 2016, 4 (1) 4-5; DOI: 10.9745/GHSP-D-16-00028

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Abbreviating the Wealth Index to Measure Equity in Health Programs More Easily
Thomas W Pullum
Global Health: Science and Practice Mar 2016, 4 (1) 4-5; DOI: 10.9745/GHSP-D-16-00028
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Some Caveats: Wealth Quintile Distribution Varies Across Sub-Populations and Comparisons Across Quintiles Need to Account for Both Beneficiaries and Potential Beneficiaries
    • Notes
    • REFERENCES
  • Info & Metrics
  • Comments
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Nurturing and Optimizing Networks of Care to Maximize Benefits to Patients, Health Workers, and Health Systems
  • Improving Maternity Care in India’s Private Hospitals: Quality Certification? Yes, but More Is Needed
  • Learning Health Systems to Bridge the Evidence-Policy-Practice Gap in Primary Health Care: Lessons From the African Health Initiative
Show more EDITORIAL

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • Cross-Cutting Topics
    • Health Systems
US AIDJohns Hopkins Center for Communication ProgramsUniversity of Alberta

Follow Us On

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Advance Access Articles
  • Past Issues
  • Topic Collections
  • Most Read Articles
  • Supplements

More Information

  • Submit a Paper
  • Instructions for Authors
  • Instructions for Reviewers
  • GH Journals Database

About

  • About GHSP
  • Advisory Board
  • FAQs
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact Us

© 2023 Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. ISSN: 2169-575X

Powered by HighWire