Table 4.

Socioeconomic status (SES): Proportion of respondents judging important differences exist for each question, across 10 systematic reviews

	Proportion of respondents judging important differences exist across SES
	Average rating	Question 1: Patient differences	Question 2: Delivery of intervention	Question 3: Comparator	Description in systematic review
INTER-RATER AGREEMENT on Q1 ≥70%
Mass media for HIV testing	87%	100%	83%	78%	Radio and television interventions can be used in literate and non-literate communities; therefore applicable to LMIC
Antidepressants for depression in primary care	84%	92%	92%	67%	SES not discussed
Population tobacco control	84%	91%	74%	87%	Price increases are more effective in low-income populations. Smoking restrictions: no SES differences
Hand washing for preventing diarrhoea	89%	83%	92%	92%	SES not discussed
INTER-RATER AGREEMENT on Q1 <70%
Surgery for age-related cataract	86%	75%	100%	83%	In developing countries, access to expensive machines, volume of surgeries and skill of surgeons may be lower
Psychological therapy for PTSD	75%	78%	91%	57%	SES not discussed
ACT for malaria	72%	75%	92%	50%	SES not discussed
Primary safety belt laws	72%	58%	100%	58%	More effective for lower use groups (e.g. African-American and Hispanic in USA)
First line anti-hypertensives	67%	65%	83%	52%	SES differences not assessed.
Vaccines MMR in children	67%	50%	75%	75%	SES not discussed. “effectiveness demonstrated world-wide”
Fleiss Kappa		−0.001	0.105	0.04