The objectives of this review were to identify the population groups most frequently studied, to determine the methods and techniques most commonly used to show health inequities, and to identify the most frequent socioeconomic and health indicators used in the studies on health inequities due to socioeconomic inequalities that have been carried out on the Spanish healthcare system. A scoping review was carried out of the studies conducted in the Spanish State and published in literature since 2004, after the publication of the Law of Cohesion and Quality of the National Health System. The PRISMA extension for scoping reviews was followed. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the critical reading guides of the Joanna Briggs Institute and an adaptation of the STROBE guide for ecological studies. A total of 58 articles out of 811 articles were included. Most of the articles were (77.59%, n = 45) cross-sectional studies, followed by ecological studies (13.8%, n = 8). The population group used was uneven, while the main geographical area under investigation was the whole state (51.7%, n = 30) compared to other territorial distributions (48.3%, n = 28). The studies used a multitude of health and socioeconomic indicators, highlighting self-perception of health (31.03%, n = 19) and social class (50%, n = 29). The relationship between better health and better socioeconomic status is evident. However, there is variability in the populations, methods, and indicators used to study health equity in Spain. Future health research and policies require greater systematization by public institutions and greater cooperation among researchers from disciplines such as sociology, economics, and health.

Objectives: Functional capacity is frequently used to estimate the care needs of hospitalised patients, although it does not necessarily capture all components of nursing care intensity. This study aimed to analyse the association between functional capacity and the intensity of the basic and technical care delivered and to examine whether these associations varied during hospitalisation among adults admitted to general inpatient units. A secondary objective was to examine the gradient in basic and technical care needs across functional capacity categories. Methods: A prospective longitudinal observational study was conducted in seven adult inpatient units. The baseline Barthel Index assessment was performed within the first 24 h of hospitalisation, with daily assessments thereafter. CUDYR-D and CUDYR-R were first recorded on the second day and then daily, summarising the care delivered during the preceding 24 h. Analyses included cross-sectional correlations, correlations adjusted for age and comorbidity, differences between functional categories, and longitudinal associations assessed using linear mixed-effects models. Results: The analytical sample included 188 patients and 789 daily assessments. The Barthel Index was more strongly associated with CUDYR-D (ρ = −0.823; 95% CI: −0.868 to −0.762) than with CUDYR-R (ρ = −0.472; 95% CI: −0.580 to −0.346); this difference persisted after adjustment for age and comorbidity (Δ|ρ| = 0.360; 95% CI: 0.248 to 0.484). The gradient across functional categories was higher for CUDYR-D than for CUDYR-R. In the longitudinal models, the standardised coefficients for the Barthel Index were −0.838 for CUDYR-D and −0.508 for CUDYR-R. Interactions with time were small and not statistically significant. Conclusions: Functional capacity was strongly associated with the intensity of basic care delivered but was only moderately associated with technical care and clinical surveillance. The Barthel Index should not be used alone as a proxy for overall care intensity or nursing workload.