| Literature DB >> 26463522 |
Luis Rajmil1,2,3, Arjumand Siddiqi4,5, David Taylor-Robinson6, Nick Spencer7,8.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The objectives of the study were to explore the effect of the economic crisis on child health using Spain as a case study, and to document and assess the policies implemented in response to the crisis in this context.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26463522 PMCID: PMC4605026 DOI: 10.1186/s12939-015-0236-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Equity Health ISSN: 1475-9276
Material deprivation according to the European Union-Survey of Income and Living conditions (EU-SILC)
| The definition of material deprivation was based on a selection of items that are considered to be necessary or desirable, namely: having arrears on mortgage or rent payments, utility bills, hire purchase instalments or other loan payments; not being able to afford one week’s annual holiday away from home; not being able to afford a meal with meat, chicken, fish (or vegetarian equivalent) every second day; not being able to face unexpected financial expenses; not being able to buy a telephone (including mobile phone); not being able to buy a colour television; not being able to buy a washing machine; not being able to buy a car; or not being able to afford heating to keep the house warm. The severe material deprivation rate was defined as the proportion of persons who cannot afford to pay for at least four out of the nine items specified above. |
Fig. 1a. Unemployment, child poverty and income inequalities. Spain 2005–2013. b. Unmet basic needs*. Spain 2005–2013
Impact on social determinants, child health outcomes, and on vulnerable population
| Indicators | Results (summary) | Potential impact | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Determinants of child health | |||
| Food insecurity and nutrition | NGO reports and reviews on the use of food banks [ | Exponential increase on vulnerable families looking for help attending basic food needs | Increased inequalities on the risk of undernutrition, obesity and other related conditions. Great impact on vulnerable families |
| Child health outcomes | |||
| General health | Comparison of the % of fair/poor perceived health in 2006 and 2012 (NHS) | Improvement of perceived health (11 % poor health in 2006 and 6.8 % in 2012) in population 0–14y. No changes in social inequalities detected | No impact during the period analysed |
| Children’s mental health | SDQ administered to parents of a representative sample of children in 2006 and 2012 (NHS) | Improvement of mean total difficulties score of SDQ, remaining similar inequalities by social class; worse mental health in children from unemployed families comparing two cross-sectional surveys | No impact during the period analysed |
| Vulnerable population | |||
| General health, mental health, health habits | General health, mental health, not having breakfast before leaving home in a group of 177 children attending Caritas [ | 22.7 % (boys) and 22.9 % (girls) reported poor health (direct emergency attention group) compared to 6.8 and 6.9 % in the general population. SDQ: probable case 61.3 and 37.5 % (boys and girls) vs 9.2 & 7.6 % in the general population. Similar results for not having breaksfast (15.9 & 26.2 % vs 0.1 and 1 %) | A great impact on health, mental health and health behaviours was found in these vulnerable groups |
| Access and use of healthcare | |||
| The population of children 0–18y theoretically continuous with universal coverage and no barriers to access | There were at least 14 cases of children in which barriers to access were registered. Many unreported cases of fear of parents due to their irregular administrative situation [ | Great impact on vulnerable children | |
NHS National Health Survey, APC Annual percentage of change, SDQ Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire
Fig. 2a. Hospitalisations due to unintentional injuries in children younger than 5y. Joint regression 2000–2012. b. Hospitalisations due to child maltreatment in children <1y. Joint regression 2000–2012
Policies implemented in Spain since the crisisa
| Measure | Type of measureb | Content of measures | Potential impact on family and children |
|---|---|---|---|
| Royal decree law 8/2010 on exceptional measures to reduce public spending (May, 2010) | B | Removal of universal benefits for each birth or adoption (2500 Euros), among other measures of reduction on public spending | The birth benefit started in 2007 (recently); its removal has an impact on the whole society with likely greater impact on poor families |
| Modification of Article 135 of the Spanish Constitution (September, 2011) | S | Established the primacy of fiscal stability. All governments should respect the structural deficits, and public debt should be a priority in payment | The fact that future budgets were conditioned to pay the debt before attending to the needs of citizens has potential impacts on the whole society |
| Royal decree law 16/2012 and further developments | S & B | Transform the healthcare system with almost universal coverage to a social security system, and establish the exclusion of specific groups such as undocumented migrants. Increase in co-payments for drugs and also extended it to other sanitary products and services | Theoretically these measures do not apply to children under 18y (they continuous having universal coverage), but the policy particularly impacts vulnerable families and migrant families. The removal of universal coverage has the potential to greatly increase health inequalities. |
| Spanish general budget 2011 (Dec 2011); law 2/2012 (April 2012); decree law 21/2012 (July 2012); and subsequent laws on the general budget | B | Budget cuts of approximately 20–25 % on public spending; plus other measures addressed to reduce unemployment benefits, and increase VAT from 18 to 21 % | Linear cuts, reduction of unemployment benefits which penalise long term unemployed, and increase in none progressive taxes. All measures have a greater impact on poor families |
| Stability Programme 2013–16 (April 2013) | S & B | Control of deficit (6.3 % in 2013, and proposal of 5.5 % in 2014, 4.1 % in 2015 and 2.7 % in 2016). | Unknown impact in the short term but the impact could be greater on poor families if the control of deficit is centred on budget cuts |
| Investment in social protection for children and families | B | Comparing the years 2007, 2010 and 2013 in constant Euros, the latter data showed a reduction of 6.8 % over 2007 and 14.6 % since 2010 [ | Impact on social inequalities and greater impact on vulnerable families |
| Housing policy: low social protection and a system (pre-crisis) that perpetuate debts even after evictions | S | Evicted families and/or with difficulties in maintaining their houses with precarious jobs or without jobs increased with the crisis | A great impact on vulnerable families and social movements demanding changes in these laws that penalise vulnerable families |
aBased on the reference [16] for more information see tables 2 and 3 of the mentioned reference; except reference [31] bS: Structural; B: budgetary