Increasing evidence shows that health inequalities exist between and within countries, and emphasis has been placed on strengthening the production and use of the global health inequalities research, so as to improve capacities to act. Yet, a comprehensive overview of this evidence base is still needed, to determine what is known about the global and historical scientific production on health inequalities to date, how is it distributed in terms of country income groups and world regions, how has it changed over time, and what international collaboration dynamics exist. A comprehensive bibliometric analysis of the global scientific production on health inequalities, from 1966 to 2015, was conducted using Scopus database. The historical and global evolution of the study of health inequalities was considered, and through joinpoint regression analysis and visualisation network maps, the preceding questions were examined. 159 countries (via authorship affiliation) contributed to this scientific production, three times as many countries than previously found. Scientific output on health inequalities has exponentially grown over the last five decades, with several marked shift points, and a visible country-income group affiliation gradient in the initiation and consistent publication frequency. Higher income countries, especially Anglo-Saxon and European countries, disproportionately dominate first and co-authorship, and are at the core of the global collaborative research networks, with the Global South on the periphery. However, several country anomalies exist that suggest that the causes of these research inequalities, and potential underlying dependencies, run deeper than simply differences in country income and language. Whilst the global evidence base has expanded, Global North-South research gaps exist, persist and, in some cases, are widening. Greater understanding of the structural determinants of these research inequalities and national research capacities is needed, to further strengthen the evidence base, and support the long term agenda for global health equity.

Background: There is a lack of consensus on the social determinants of Deaths of Despair (DoD), i.e., an increase in mortality attributed to drug overdose, alcohol-related liver disease, and suicide in the United States (USA) during recent years. The objective of this study was to review the scientific literature on DoD with the purpose of identifying relevant social determinants and inequalities related to these mortality trends. Methods: Scoping review focusing on the period 2015–2022 based on PubMed search. Articles were selected according to the following inclusion criteria: published between 1 January 2000 and 31 October 2021; including empirical data; analyzed DoD including the three causes defined by Case and Deaton; analyzed at least one social determinant; written in English; and studied DoD in the USA context only. Studies were excluded if they only analyzed adolescent populations. We synthesized our findings in a narrative report specifically addressing DoD by economic conditions, occupational hazards, educational level, geographical setting, and race/ethnicity. Results: Seventeen studies were included. Overall, findings identify a progressive increase in deaths attributable to suicide, drug overdose, and alcohol-related liver disease in the USA in the last two decades. The literature concerning DoD and social determinants is relatively scarce and some determinants have been barely studied. However different, however, large inequalities have been identified in the manner in which the causes of death embedded in the concept of DoD affect different subpopulations, particularly African American, and Hispanic populations, but blue collar-whites are also significantly impacted. Low socioeconomic position and education levels and working in jobs with high insecurity, unemployment, and living in rural areas were identified as the most relevant social determinants of DoD. Conclusions: There is a need for further research on the structural and intermediate social determinants of DoD and social mechanisms. Intersectional and systemic approaches are needed to better understand and tackle DoD and related inequalities.

It is desirable that health researchers have the ability to conduct research on health equity and contribute to the development of their national health system and policymaking processes. However, in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), there is a limited capacity to conduct this type of research due to reasons mostly associated with the status of national (health) research systems. Building sustainable research capacity in LMICs through the triangulation of South–North-South (S-N-S) collaborative networks seems to be an effective way to maximize limited national resources to strengthen these capacities. This article describes how a collaborative project (SDH-Net), funded by the European Commission, has successfully designed a study protocol and a S-N-S collaborative network to effectively support research capacity building in LMICs, specifically in the area of social determinants of health (SDH); this project seeks to elaborate on the vital role of global collaborative networks in strengthening this practice. The implementation of SDH-Net comprised diverse activities developed in three phases. Phase 1: national level mapping exercises were conducted to assess the needs for SDH capacity building or strengthening in local research systems. Four strategic areas were defined, namely research implementation and system performance, social appropriation of knowledge, institutional and national research infrastructure, and research skills and training/networks. Phase 2: development of tools to address the identified capacity building needs, as well as knowledge management and network strengthening activities. Phase 3: identifying lessons learned in terms of research ethics, and how policies can support the capacity building process in SDH research. The implementation of the protocol has led the network to design innovative tools for strengthening SDH research capacities, under a successful S-N-S collaboration that included national mapping reports, a global open-access learning platform with tools and resources, ethical guidelines for research, policy recommendations, and academic contributions to the global SDH discourse. The effective triangulation of S-N-S partnerships can be of high value in building sustainable research capacity in LMICs. If designed appropriately, these multicultural, multi-institutional, and multidisciplinary collaborations can enable southern and northern academics to contextualize global research according to their national realities.

Mortality registries are an essential data source for public health surveillance and for planning and evaluating public policy. Nevertheless, there are still large inequalities in the completeness and quality of mortality registries between and within countries. In Ecuador, there have been few nationwide evaluations of the mortality registry and no evaluations of inequalities between provinces. This kind of analysis is fundamental for strengthening the vital statistics system. Ecological study assessing the completeness, quality and internal consistency of mortality data in the provinces of Ecuador, using 13 years of mortality data (2001–2013). Completeness was assessed using three types of death distribution methods (DDMs), quality by estimating the percentages of garbage codes and deaths with unspecified age or sex in the registered deaths, and internal consistency by estimating the percentage of deaths with reported causes of deaths considered impossible in some age–sex combinations. Finally, we propose a classification of the mortality registry in the studied areas based on completeness and quality. Completeness estimates (mean of the three methods used) in the provinces ranged from 21 to 87% in women and from 35 to 89% in men. The percentage of garbage codes in the provinces ranged from 21 to 56% in women and from 25 to 52% in men. Garbage coding was higher in women and in older age groups. The percentage of deaths with unspecified age or sex, and the percentage of deaths with reported causes of deaths considered impossible in some age–sex combinations was low in all the studied areas. The mortality registry could only be classified as acceptable in one area for men and one area for women. We found substantial inequalities by sex, geographical areas and age in the completeness and quality of the mortality registry of Ecuador. The findings of this study will be helpful to direct measures to improve Ecuador’s vital statistics system and to generate strategies to reduce bias when using mortality data to analyse health inequalities in the country.

The full impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is yet to be well established; however, as the pandemic spreads, and early results emerge, unmet needs are being revealed, and pressing questions are being asked about who is most affected, how, where, and in what ways government responses might be exacerbating inequalities. A number of scholars have called for more in-depth critical research on COVID-19 and health inequalities to produce a strong empirical evidence based on these issues. There are also justifiable concerns about the scarcity of health-equity actions oriented analyses of the situation and calls for more empirical evidence on COVID-19 and health inequalities. A preliminary condition to establish this type of information is strong capacity to conduct health inequalities research. Worldwide, however, this type of capacity is limited, which, alongside other challenges, will likely hinder capacities of many countries to develop comprehensive equity-oriented COVID-19 analyses, and adequate responses to present and future crises. The current pandemic reinforces the pending need to invest in and strengthen these research capacities. These capacities must be supported by widespread recognition and concern, cognitive social capital, and greater commitment to coordinated, transparent action, and responsibility. Otherwise, we will remain inadequately prepared to respond and meet our society’s unmet needs.

Societal concerns about the effects of the COVID‐19 pandemic have largely focussed on the social groups most directly affected, such as the elderly and health workers. However, less focus has been placed on understanding the effects on other collectives, such as children. While children’s physical health appears to be less affected than the adult population, their mental health, learning and wellbeing is likely to have been significantly negatively affected during the pandemic due to the varying policy restrictions, such as withdrawal from face to face schooling, limited peer‐to‐peer interactions and mobility and increased exposure to the digital world amongst other things. Children from vulnerable social backgrounds, and especially girls, will be most negatively affected by the impact of COVID‐19, given their different intersecting realities and the power structures already negatively affecting them. To strengthen the understanding of the social determinants of the COVID‐19 crisis that unequally influence children’s health and wellbeing, this article presents a conceptual framework that considers the multiple axes of inequalities and power relations. This understanding can then be used to inform analyses and impact assessments, and in turn inform the development of effective and equitable mitigation strategies as well as assist to be better prepared for future pandemics.