Table 1.
Assessing the extent to which PROGRESS-Plus social factors are considered in global maternal health interventions.
| Intervention design n = 59 studiesa |
Equity-informed target population n = 31 studiesb |
Equity-informed outcome evaluation n = 51 studiesc |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n (%) | PROGRESS-Plus factor | n (%) | PROGRESS-Plus factor | n (%) | PROGRESS-Plus factor | |
| Place of residence | 4 (6.8%) | Targets access in rural and remote areas | 4 (12.9%) | Resident in rural area | 13 (25.5%) | Urban/rural, geographic access to facility |
| Race, ethnicity, culture, language | 3 (5.1%) | Targets racial disparities and cultural safety | 5 (16.1%) | Indigenous identity, ethnic minority | 12 (23.5%) | Caste, race/ethnicity, Indigenous identity |
| Occupation | 2 (3.4%) | Paid parental leave | 1 (3.2%) | Women who work | 5 (9.8%) | Employment status |
| Gender/sex | 2 (3.4%) | Promote gender equity | 1 (3.2%) | Women and men | 4 (7.8%) | Gender |
| Religion | 0 (0.0%) | – | 0 (0.0%) | – | 2 (3.9%) | Religion |
| Education | 7 (11.9%) | Health education | 0 (0.0%) | – | 16 (31.4%) | Education, literacy |
| Socioeconomic status | 28 (47.5%) | Vouchers, fee-subsidies, free services, user fee reductions, cash transfers | 19 (61.3%) | Poverty, food insecurity | 41 (80.4%) | Wealth status |
| Social capital | 14 (23.7%) | Safe motherhood action groups, community mobilisation, community health and health extension workers | 0 (0.0%) | – | 0 (0.0%) | – |
| Refugee/migration status | 1 (1.7%) | Professional development, group antenatal care | 1 (3.2%) | Women of refugee backgrounds | 1 (2.0%) | Refugee status |
| Age | 0 (0.0%) | – | 0 (0.0%) | – | 11 (21.6%) | Age |
| Justice-involved individuals | 1 (1.7%) | Justice reform | 0 (0.0%) | – | 0 (0.0%) | – |
This table maps the studies included in the scoping review to PROGRESS-Plus social factors (rows), based on whether the PROGRESS-Plus social factor was addressed in the intervention design, target population, or outcome evaluation. The table shows that socioeconomic status is the most commonly addressed social factor across intervention design, target population, and outcome evaluation, while more work is needed to address other social inequities and their intersections.
All 59 included studies.
31/59 included studies that specifically targeted a historically underserved or marginalised population.
51/59 included studies that conducted equity-informed outcome evaluation (e.g., disaggregating data by equity identifiers or calculating concentration indices).