BACKGROUND: Previous studies have assessed the relative importance of material, psychosocial and behavioural factors in the explanation of relative socio-economic inequalities in mortality, but research into the contribution of biomedical factors has been limited. Our study examines the relative contribution of (i) material, (ii) psychosocial, (iii) behavioural and (iv) biomedical factors in the explanation of relative socio-economic (educational and income) inequalities in mortality. METHODS: Cohort study--baseline data from the Norwegian total county population-based HUNT 2 study linked to mortality data (1995/97 to 2003). In this analysis, 18 247 men and 18 278 women aged 24-80 without severe chronic disease at baseline were eligible. RESULTS: No socio-economic inequalities in mortality among women were found. In men, educational- and income-related inequalities in mortality were found with a relative risk for the lowest educational group of 1.67 (1.29-2.15) and the lowest income quartile of 2.03 (1.57-2.70). Together, the four explanatory factors reduced the relative risk of mortality of the lowest educational group to 1.18 (0.90-1.55) and the relative risk of mortality in the lowest income quartile was attenuated to 1.17 (0.83-1.63). Known biomedical factors contributed least to both educational and income inequalities in mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Material factors were the most important in explaining income inequalities in mortality amongst men, whereas psychosocial and behavioural factors were the most important in explaining educational inequalities. This suggests that improving the material, psychosocial and behavioural circumstances of men might bring more substantial reductions in relative socio-economic inequalities in mortality.
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have assessed the relative importance of material, psychosocial and behavioural factors in the explanation of relative socio-economic inequalities in mortality, but research into the contribution of biomedical factors has been limited. Our study examines the relative contribution of (i) material, (ii) psychosocial, (iii) behavioural and (iv) biomedical factors in the explanation of relative socio-economic (educational and income) inequalities in mortality. METHODS: Cohort study--baseline data from the Norwegian total county population-based HUNT 2 study linked to mortality data (1995/97 to 2003). In this analysis, 18 247 men and 18 278 women aged 24-80 without severe chronic disease at baseline were eligible. RESULTS: No socio-economic inequalities in mortality among women were found. In men, educational- and income-related inequalities in mortality were found with a relative risk for the lowest educational group of 1.67 (1.29-2.15) and the lowest income quartile of 2.03 (1.57-2.70). Together, the four explanatory factors reduced the relative risk of mortality of the lowest educational group to 1.18 (0.90-1.55) and the relative risk of mortality in the lowest income quartile was attenuated to 1.17 (0.83-1.63). Known biomedical factors contributed least to both educational and income inequalities in mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Material factors were the most important in explaining income inequalities in mortality amongst men, whereas psychosocial and behavioural factors were the most important in explaining educational inequalities. This suggests that improving the material, psychosocial and behavioural circumstances of men might bring more substantial reductions in relative socio-economic inequalities in mortality.
Authors: Loveleen Bansi-Matharu; Gabriela Rodriguez Loria; Stephen R Cole; Henry Mugerwa; Isabel Vecino; Jens Lundgren; Piotr Pulik; Colette Smith; Andrew N Phillips Journal: AIDS Date: 2019-07-01 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Joan Doménech-Abella; Jordi Mundó; Maria Victoria Moneta; Jaime Perales; José Luis Ayuso-Mateos; Marta Miret; Josep Maria Haro; Beatriz Olaya Journal: Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol Date: 2018-01-10 Impact factor: 4.328
Authors: Nihaya Daoud; Varda Soskolne; Jennifer S Mindell; Marilyn A Roth; Orly Manor Journal: Int J Public Health Date: 2017-12-22 Impact factor: 3.380
Authors: Irene Moor; Thomas Lampert; Katharina Rathmann; Benjamin Kuntz; Petra Kolip; Jacob Spallek; Matthias Richter Journal: Int J Public Health Date: 2013-12-25 Impact factor: 3.380
Authors: Marialaura Bonaccio; Augusto Di Castelnuovo; Simona Costanzo; Mariarosaria Persichillo; Maria Benedetta Donati; Giovanni de Gaetano; Licia Iacoviello Journal: Int J Public Health Date: 2016-04-18 Impact factor: 3.380