Literature DB >> 11076989

Why reduce health inequalities?

A Woodward1, I Kawachi.   

Abstract

It is well known that social, cultural and economic factors cause substantial inequalities in health. Should we strive to achieve a more even share of good health, beyond improving the average health status of the population? We examine four arguments for the reduction of health inequalities.1 Inequalities are unfair. Inequalities in health are undesirable to the extent that they are unfair, or unjust. Distinguishing between health inequalities and health inequities can be contentious. Our view is that inequalities become "unfair" when poor health is itself the consequence of an unjust distribution of the underlying social determinants of health (for example, unequal opportunities in education or employment).2 Inequalities affect everyone. Conditions that lead to marked health disparities are detrimental to all members of society. Some types of health inequalities have obvious spillover effects on the rest of society, for example, the spread of infectious diseases, the consequences of alcohol and drug misuse, or the occurrence of violence and crime.3 Inequalities are avoidable. Disparities in health are avoidable to the extent that they stem from identifiable policy options exercised by governments, such as tax policy, regulation of business and labour, welfare benefits and health care funding. It follows that health inequalities are, in principle, amenable to policy interventions. A government that cares about improving the health of the population ought therefore to incorporate considerations of the health impact of alternative options in its policy setting process.3 Interventions to reduce health inequalities are cost effective. Public health programmes that reduce health inequalities can also be cost effective. The case can be made to give priority to such programmes (for example, improving access to cervical cancer screening in low income women) on efficiency grounds. On the other hand, few programmes designed to reduce health inequalities have been formally evaluated using cost effectiveness analysis. We conclude that fairness is likely to be the most influential argument in favour of acting to reduce disparities in health, but the concept of equity is contested and susceptible to different interpretations. There is persuasive evidence for some outcomes that reducing inequalities will diminish "spill over" effects on the health of society at large. In principle, you would expect that differences in health status that are not biologically determined are avoidable. However, the mechanisms giving rise to inequalities are still imperfectly understood, and evidence remains to be gathered on the effectiveness of interventions to reduce such inequalities.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 11076989      PMCID: PMC1731601          DOI: 10.1136/jech.54.12.923

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health        ISSN: 0143-005X            Impact factor:   3.710


  28 in total

1.  Inequalities in health. Policies to reduce income inequalities are unlikely to eradicate inequalities in mortality.

Authors:  P Martikainen; T Valkonen
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-07-31

2.  Why justice is good for our health: the social determinants of health inequalities.

Authors:  Norman Daniels; Bruce P Kennedy; Ichiro Kawachi
Journal:  Daedalus       Date:  1999

3.  The prevalence of caries in 5-year-old children living in fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities in New Zealand.

Authors:  E T Treasure; J G Dever
Journal:  N Z Dent J       Date:  1992-01

4.  The relationship between fluoridation, social class and caries experience in 5-year-old children in Newcastle and Northumberland in 1987.

Authors:  C L Carmichael; A J Rugg-Gunn; R S Ferrell
Journal:  Br Dent J       Date:  1989-07-22       Impact factor: 1.626

5.  Free care: a quantitative analysis of health and cost effects of a national health program for the United States.

Authors:  S Woolhandler; D U Himmelstein
Journal:  Int J Health Serv       Date:  1988       Impact factor: 1.663

6.  Sick individuals and sick populations.

Authors:  G Rose
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  1985-03       Impact factor: 7.196

7.  Social class differences in mortality from diseases amenable to medical intervention in New Zealand.

Authors:  S W Marshall; I Kawachi; N Pearce; B Borman
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  1993-04       Impact factor: 7.196

8.  Social class inequalities in the decline of coronary heart disease among New Zealand men, 1975-1977 to 1985-1987.

Authors:  I Kawachi; S Marshall; N Pearce
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  1991-06       Impact factor: 7.196

9.  Mortality decline and widening social inequalities.

Authors:  M G Marmot; M E McDowall
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1986-08-02       Impact factor: 79.321

10.  Why are the Japanese living longer?

Authors:  M G Marmot; G D Smith
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1989 Dec 23-30
View more
  40 in total

Review 1.  A glossary for health inequalities.

Authors:  I Kawachi; S V Subramanian; N Almeida-Filho
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 3.710

2.  Increasing inequalities in premature mortality in Great Britain.

Authors:  A H Leyland
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 3.710

Review 3.  Aging with a disability: a systematic review of cardiovascular disease and osteoporosis among women aging with a physical disability.

Authors:  Andrea L Rosso; Jennifer Pelt Wisdom; Willi Horner-Johnson; Marjorie G McGee; Yvonne L Michael
Journal:  Maturitas       Date:  2010-11-13       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 4.  Is health inequality across individuals of moral concern?

Authors:  Yukiko Asada
Journal:  Health Care Anal       Date:  2006-03

5.  Collection of social determinant of health measures in U.S. national surveillance systems for HIV, viral hepatitis, STDs, and TB.

Authors:  Victoria M Beltran; Kathleen McDavid Harrison; H Irene Hall; Hazel D Dean
Journal:  Public Health Rep       Date:  2011 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.792

6.  Enabling the transferability of complex interventions: exploring the combination of an intervention's key functions and implementation.

Authors:  Mélanie Villeval; Elsa Bidault; Jeannie Shoveller; François Alias; Jean-Charles Basson; Catherine Frasse; Jean-Paul Génolini; Elisabeth Pons; Damien Verbiguié; Pascale Grosclaude; Thierry Lang
Journal:  Int J Public Health       Date:  2016-04-11       Impact factor: 3.380

7.  Reducing health disparity in Taiwan: quantifying the role of smoking.

Authors:  T Y Cheng; C P Wen; S P Tsai; W S I Chung; C C Hsu
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 7.552

8.  Socioeconomic inequalities in the use of outpatient services in Brazil according to health care need: evidence from the World Health Survey.

Authors:  Célia L Szwarcwald; Paulo R B Souza-Júnior; Giseli N Damacena
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2010-07-23       Impact factor: 2.655

9.  Injection drug use and the hepatitis C virus: considerations for a targeted treatment approach--the case study of Canada.

Authors:  Benedikt Fischer; Emma Haydon; Jürgen Rehm; Mel Krajden; Jens Reimer
Journal:  J Urban Health       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 3.671

10.  Do enhancements to the urban built environment improve physical activity levels among socially disadvantaged populations?

Authors:  Jamie R Pearce; Ralph Maddison
Journal:  Int J Equity Health       Date:  2011-07-18
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.