Explore the vast range of titles available.

Health risks in the 21st century are beyond the control of any government in any country. In an era of globalisation, promoting public health and equity requires cooperation and coordination both within and among states. Law can be a powerful tool for advancing global health, yet it remains substantially underutilised and poorly understood. Working in partnership, public health lawyers and health professionals can become champions for evidence-based laws to ensure the public’s health and safety. This Lancet Commission articulates the crucial role of law in achieving global health with justice, through legal instruments, legal capacities, and institutional reforms, as well as a firm commitment to the rule of law. The Commission’s aim is to enhance the global health community’s understanding of law, regulation, and the rule of law as effective tools to advance population health and equity.

Despite growing interest in understanding how social factors drive poor health outcomes, many academics, policy makers, scientists, elected officials, journalists, and others responsible for defining and responding to the public discourse remain reluctant to identify racism as a root cause of racial health inequities. In this conceptual report, the third in a Series on equity and equality in health in the USA, we use a contemporary and historical perspective to discuss research and interventions that grapple with the implications of what is known as structural racism on population health and health inequities. Structural racism refers to the totality of ways in which societies foster racial discrimination through mutually reinforcing systems of housing, education, employment, earnings, benefits, credit, media, health care, and criminal justice. These patterns and practices in turn reinforce discriminatory beliefs, values, and distribution of resources. We argue that a focus on structural racism offers a concrete, feasible, and promising approach towards advancing health equity and improving population health.

COVID-19 starkly reveals how structural injustice cuts short the lives of people subjected to systemic racism and economic deprivation.2 4 It is not, however, the only crisis at hand.Since the May 25, 2020, murder of George Floyd, a 46year-old African American man, by the Minneapolis, Minnesota, police, protests have coursed through cities and towns across the United States, denouncing structural racism and police violence,5-7 fueled, too, by COVID-19's disproportionate toll on US populations of color.2 4 In a context in which US police kill upwards of 1000 people peryear-nearly three per day, disproportionately Black Americans, and vastly more than in any other wealthy country5,6 -the last straw was Floyd's horrific murder.7 Floyd died because he could not breathe, because police officer Derek Chauvin knelt on his neck for an agonizing 8 minutes and 46 seconds-in open view, as videoed for all to see, while three other police standing nearby failed to intervene.The current upsurge ofprotest builds on the leadership of so many groups, perhaps most prominently Black Lives Matter, founded in 2013 by three radical Black women organizers-Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi-in response to the acquittal of Trayvon Martin's vigilante murderer, George Zimmerman, and which rapidly grew in the wake of Michael Brown's killing by Ferguson, Missouri, police officer Darren Wilson in 2014.8 Also feeding these protests is the post-2016 rise in hate crimes,9 coupled with overt expressions of racism, both by word and by policies, at the highest levels of the US . 2,10 government.

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have laid the foundation for investigations into the biology of complex traits, drug development and clinical guidelines. However, the majority of discovery efforts are based on data from populations of European ancestry 1 – 3 . In light of the differential genetic architecture that is known to exist between populations, bias in representation can exacerbate existing disease and healthcare disparities. Critical variants may be missed if they have a low frequency or are completely absent in European populations, especially as the field shifts its attention towards rare variants, which are more likely to be population-specific 4 – 10 . Additionally, effect sizes and their derived risk prediction scores derived in one population may not accurately extrapolate to other populations 11 , 12 . Here we demonstrate the value of diverse, multi-ethnic participants in large-scale genomic studies. The Population Architecture using Genomics and Epidemiology (PAGE) study conducted a GWAS of 26 clinical and behavioural phenotypes in 49,839 non-European individuals. Using strategies tailored for analysis of multi-ethnic and admixed populations, we describe a framework for analysing diverse populations, identify 27 novel loci and 38 secondary signals at known loci, as well as replicate 1,444 GWAS catalogue associations across these traits. Our data show evidence of effect-size heterogeneity across ancestries for published GWAS associations, substantial benefits for fine-mapping using diverse cohorts and insights into clinical implications. In the United States—where minority populations have a disproportionately higher burden of chronic conditions 13 —the lack of representation of diverse populations in genetic research will result in inequitable access to precision medicine for those with the highest burden of disease. We strongly advocate for continued, large genome-wide efforts in diverse populations to maximize genetic discovery and reduce health disparities. Genetic analyses of ancestrally diverse populations show evidence of heterogeneity across ancestries and provide insights into clinical implications, highlighting the importance of including ancestrally diverse populations to maximize genetic discovery and reduce health disparities.

The data are clear: taking sex and gender into account in research and using that knowledge to change health care could benefit billions of people. The data are clear: taking sex and gender into account in research and using that knowledge to change health care could benefit billions of people.

Background Many low and middle income countries are implementing reforms to support Universal Health Coverage (UHC). Perhaps one of the most ambitious examples of this is Indonesia’s national health scheme known as the JKN which is designed to make health care available to its entire population of 255 million by end of 2019. If successful, the JKN will be the biggest single payer system in the world. While Indonesia has made steady progress, around a third of its population remains without cover and out of pocket payments for health are widespread even among JKN members. To help close these gaps, especially among the poor, the Indonesian government is currently implementing a set of UHC policy reforms that include the integration of remaining government insurance schemes into the JKN, expansion of provider networks, restructuring of provider payments systems, accreditation of all contracted health facilities and a range of demand side initiatives to increase insurance uptake, especially in the informal sector. This study evaluates the equity impact of this latest set of UHC reforms. Methods Using a before and after design, we will evaluate the combined effects of the national UHC reforms at baseline (early 2018) and target of JKN full implementation (end 2019) on: progressivity of the health care financing system; pro-poorness of the health care delivery system; levels of catastrophic and impoverishing health expenditure; and self-reported health outcomes. In-depth interviews with stakeholders to document the context and the process of implementing these reforms, will also be undertaken. Discussion As countries like Indonesia focus on increasing coverage, it is critically important to ensure that the poor and vulnerable - who are often the most difficult to reach – are not excluded. The results of this study will not only help track Indonesia’s progress to universalism but also reveal what the UHC-reforms mean to the poor.

Improving maternal health is a global priority for overall socioeconomic development countries, especially in the low- and middle-income countries including Nepal. Recently, Nepal has made significant progress in enhancing access to maternal health services and in reducing maternal mortality ratio (MMR). Nonetheless, the MMR remains high (151 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births), with a slower rate of decline in recent years, particularly among disadvantaged groups. This study investigates trends and determinants of key maternal health services in Nepal. We conducted further analysis of secondary data from the most recent three Nepal Demographic and Health Surveys (NDHS) conducted in 2011 (n = 1,057), 2016 (n = 964), and 2022 (n = 981) among women aged 15-49 who had at least one live birth prior to each survey. The outcome variables for the trend analysis included the uptake of at least four antenatal care (4ANC) visits, institutional deliveries, first postnatal care (PNC) within 48 hours of childbirth, and completion of all these three routine visits. Determinants of institutional delivery, delivery in private health facilities (HFs), cesarian section (CS) deliveries, and uptake of maternity incentive were investigated. Independent variables included socioeconomic characteristics of women and their marginalization status, geographic factors (e.g., province), health system factors (health service use). A multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted using data from the NDHS 2022 to investigate the associated determinants of outcome variables considering p value <0.05. Results showed low completion rates (59%) of all three maternity care visits and significant discontinuity of care throughout the maternity continuum (82% 4ANC, and 73% PNC visits). From 2011 to 2022, there were increased institutional deliveries overall (47% to 81%) and CS within private HFs (30% to 51%), alongside a decreasing trend in the utilization of maternity incentives (87% to 78%). Women from Karnali province and those facing multiple forms of marginalization (women form lower wealth status and who belong to marginalized ethnicities (e.g., Dalits or Janajatis), and lack of education had lower odds of institutional delivery. Conversely, women who attended at least 4ANC visits had higher odds of institutional delivery. Higher odds of childbirth in private HFs were identified in the Koshi, Bagmati, Madhesh, and Lumbini provinces, particularly among women with fewer forms of marginalization. In contrast, women who worked as manual labor or those with higher birth orders had lower odds of childbirth in private HFs. Notably, higher odds of delivery by CS were observed among older women, women who were Maithili native speakers, and in provinces where higher delivery in HFs. Furthermore, the odds of uptake of maternity incentives were lower among women who had gave births in private HFs. Marginalized women experience lower uptake of routine maternity care visits and higher discontinuation along the antenatal through to ponstantal period, creating significant equity gaps in Nepal. The increasing trend of deliveries in private HFs, particularly deliveries by elective CS without maternity incentives could lead to financial hardship while seeking routine maternal health care. Health systems should adopt targeted strategies addressing specific needs, considering intersecting marginalization factors. Key interventions include improving infrastructure, hiring and training local health workers, revising maternity incentives, regulating private HFs, and conducting quality audits, including increasing trends of CS deliveries.

As PLOS Medicine enters a new chapter, its leadership sets out a bold editorial vision grounded in evidence, impact and equity. In a rapidly evolving global health landscape, the journal reaffirms its commitment to diversity, openness, and actionable science, ensuring research not only reflects the world's needs, but drives meaningful change.

When a transplant is out of reach, kidney failure leaves those without access to high-quality health care with few options. When a transplant is out of reach, kidney failure leaves those without access to high-quality health care with few options.

Health equity is an often-cited goal of public health, included among the 4 overarching goals of the Department of Health and Human Services' Healthy People 2020. Yet it is difficult to find summary assessments of national progress toward this goal. To identify variation in several measures of health equity from 1993 to 2017 in the United States and to test whether there are significant time trends. Survey study using 25 years of data, from January 1, 1993, to December 31, 2017, from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System to assess trends in health equity and health justice by race/ethnicity, sex, and income in 3 categories by year. Health equity was assessed separately for each of 2 health constructs: healthy days-the average of physical and mental healthy days over the previous 30 days-and general health in 5 categories, rescaled to approximate a continuous variable. For each health construct, average health was calculated along with 4 measures of health equity: disparities across 3 income groups; black-white disparities; health justice-a measure of the correlation of health outcomes with income, race/ethnicity and sex; and a summary health equity metric. Among the 5 456 006 respondents, the mean (SD) age was 44.5 (12.7) years; 3 178 688 (58.3%) were female; 4 163 945 (76.3%) were non-Latinx white; 474 855 (8.7%) were non-Latinx black; 419 542 (7.7%) were Latinx; and 397 664 (7.3%) were of other race/ethnicity. The final sample included 5 456 006 respondents for self-reported health and 5 349 527 respondents for healthy days. During the 25-year period, the black-white gap showed significant improvement (year coefficient: healthy days, 0.021; 97.5% CI, 0.012 to 0.029; P < .001; self-reported health, 0.030; 97.5% CI, 0.025 to 0.035; P < .001). The health equity metric for self-reported health showed no significant trend. For healthy days, the Health Equity Metric declined over time (year coefficient: healthy days, -0.025; 97.5% CI, -0.033 to -0.017; P < .001). Health justice declined over time (year coefficient: healthy days, -0.045; 97.5% CI, -0.053 to -0.038; P < .001; self-reported health, -0.035; 97.5% CI, -0.046 to-0.023; P < .001), and income disparities worsened (year coefficient: healthy days, -0.060; 97.5% CI, -0.076 to -0.044; P < .001; self-reported health, -0.029; 97.5% CI, -0.046 to -0.012; P < .001). Results of this analysis suggest that there has been a clear lack of progress on health equity during the past 25 years in the United States. Achieving widely shared goals of improving health equity will require greater effort from public health policy makers, along with their partners in medicine and the sectors that contribute to the social determinants of health.