scholarly journals ON THE CHOICE OF HEALTH INEQUALITY MEASURE FOR THE LONGITUDINAL ANALYSIS OF INCOME‐RELATED HEALTH INEQUALITIES

2012 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 353-365 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Allanson ◽  
Dennis Petrie
Keyword(s):  
Health Inequalities ◽  
Health Inequality ◽  
Longitudinal Analysis ◽  
Inequality Measure

The Politics of Global Health Inequalities

2019 ◽  
pp. 58-84
Author(s):  
Yusra Ribhi Shawar ◽  
Jennifer Prah Ruger
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Critical Theory ◽  
Global Health ◽  
Health Inequalities ◽  
Health Inequality ◽  
The Political ◽  
State Of Health ◽  
Political Determinants ◽  
The Social

Careful investigations of the political determinants of health that include the role of power in health inequalities—systematic differences in health achievements among different population groups—are increasing but remain inadequate. Historically, much of the research examining health inequalities has been influenced by biomedical perspectives and focused, as such, on ‘downstream’ factors. More recently, there has been greater recognition of more ‘distal’ and ‘upstream’ drivers of health inequalities, including the impacts of power as expressed by actors, as well as embedded in societal structures, institutions, and processes. The goal of this chapter is to examine how power has been conceptualised and analysed to date in relation to health inequalities. After reviewing the state of health inequality scholarship and the emerging interest in studying power in global health, the chapter presents varied conceptualisations of power and how they are used in the literature to understand health inequalities. The chapter highlights the particular disciplinary influences in studying power across the social sciences, including anthropology, political science, and sociology, as well as cross-cutting perspectives such as critical theory and health capability. It concludes by highlighting strengths and limitations of the existing research in this area and discussing power conceptualisations and frameworks that so far have been underused in health inequalities research. This includes potential areas for future inquiry and approaches that may expand the study of as well as action on addressing health inequality.

scholarly journals Tackling health inequality at the local level: Some critical reflections on the future of Norwegian policies

2017 ◽  
Vol 45 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 56-61 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wenche Bekken ◽  
Espen Dahl ◽  
Kjetil Van Der Wel
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Health Inequalities ◽  
Health Inequality ◽  
Social Inequalities ◽  
Local Level ◽  
Government Documents ◽  
Challenges And Opportunities ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Public Health Act

Aim: In this paper we discuss recent developments in the policy to reduce health inequalities in Norway in relation to challenges and opportunities associated with tackling health inequality at the local level. Methods: We discuss government documents and research findings on the implementation of policies to diminish health inequalities at the municipality level. Recent policy developments are briefly reviewed in relation to the 10-year strategy to reduce health inequalities passed by the Parliament in 2007. We then identify opportunities and obstacles to successful action on health inequalities at the local level. Results: The 2012 Public Health Act represented a powerful reinforcement of the strategy to reduce health inequalities at all three levels of government: the national, the regional and the local. However, some aspects of the policies pursued by the current government are likely to make local action to tackle health inequality an uphill struggle. In particular, health equity policies that have hitherto been based on universalism and had a focus on the gradient seem to be running out of fuel. Other challenges are an insufficient capacity for effective action particularly in smaller municipalities, and a rather weak knowledge base, including systems to monitor social inequalities and a general lack of evaluations of trials and new initiatives. Conclusions: We conclude that the Public Health Act opened up many new opportunities, but that a number of municipalities face obstacles that they need to overcome to tackle health inequalities comprehensively. Furthermore, local efforts need to be coupled with sustained national momentum to be efficient.

Health Difference, Disparity, Inequality, or Inequity—What Difference Does It Make What We Call It?

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paula Braveman
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Health Equity ◽  
Health Inequalities ◽  
Health Inequality ◽  
Social Disadvantage ◽  
The Past ◽  
Health Differences ◽  
Technical Issues

Over the past two and a half decades, distinct approaches have been taken to defining and measuring health inequalities or disparities and health equity. Some efforts have focused on technical issues in measurement, often without addressing the implications for the concepts themselves and how that might influence action. Others have focused on the concepts, often without addressing the implications for measurement. This chapter contrasts approaches that have been proposed, examining their conceptual bases and implications for measurement and policy. It argues for an approach to defining health inequalities and health equity that centers on notions of justice and has its basis in ethical and human rights principles as well as empirical evidence. According to this approach, health inequality or disparity is used to refer to a subset of health differences that are closely linked with—but not necessarily proven caused by—social disadvantage. The term “inequity,” which means injustice, could also be used, but arguments are presented for using it somewhat more sparingly, for those inequalities or disparities in health or its determinants that we know are caused by social disadvantage.

scholarly journals Monitoring health inequalities at the municipal level: Lithuanian experience

Open Medicine ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 163-170 ◽  
Author(s):  
Snieguole Kaseliene ◽  
Olga Mesceriakova-Veliuliene ◽  
Jurgita Vladickiene ◽  
Ramune Kalediene ◽  
Neringa Seseikaite ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Health Inequalities ◽  
Health Inequality ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Health Indicators ◽  
Intersectoral Collaboration ◽  
Public Health Professionals ◽  
Positive Attitudes ◽  
Routine Monitoring ◽  
Municipal Level

AbstractThis study aimed to assess the attitudes of Lithuanian public health professionals towards health inequality monitoring in municipalities.The survey was conducted in public health bureaus (PHBs) and administrations of municipalities in March 2015. All employees of PHBs, all municipal doctors and all employees of health departments were invited to participate in the study (N=318; response rate, 47.2%).The study participants had positive attitudes towards the importance of health inequality monitoring at the municipal level, meanwhile systematic health inequality monitoring was assessed moderately. The majority of the interviewed professionals working at PHBs and municipalities (91.4% and 88.2%, respectively) declared that health indicators were monitored and analysed in their institutions. The respondents acknowledged the importance of routine monitoring of health indicators for assessment of inequalities, but these indicators were not monitored systematically in every municipality and PHB. Public health professionals identified the following measures for better health inequality monitoring: to strengthen intersectoral collaboration, formulate specific objectives of health programmes, promote actions in reducing health inequalities.ConclusionsPublic health professionals working at the municipal level outlined the importance of monitoring and reducing health inequalities. However, health inequality monitoring at the municipal level was considered as insufficient.

scholarly journals Measuring Geographic and Wealth Inequalities in Health Distribution as Tools for Identifying Priority Health Inequalities and the Underprivileged Populations

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 216495611879195 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sherine Shawky
Keyword(s):  
Information Systems ◽  
Health Information ◽  
Health Inequalities ◽  
Health Inequality ◽  
Health Information Systems ◽  
Inequalities In Health ◽  
Inequality Measures ◽  
Pearson Coefficient ◽  
Wealth Inequalities ◽  
Index Of Dissimilarity

Background Currently, there is no consensus on standard measure that can be routinely part of the health information systems to alert countries to inequalities in health and identify the priority health inequality conditions. Objectives To identify the health inequality measures relevant for assessing geographic and wealth inequalities; use the measures as a demonstration to what can happen in practice to recognize the geographic and wealth-related priority health inequalities within a country; and identify the geographic and wealth underprivileged populations. Method Egypt data were used as demonstration. Pearson coefficient of correlation was calculated to compare the various geographic and wealth health inequality measures. T test was used to identify significant correlations. The relevant inequality measures were used to rank geographic and wealth health inequalities and identify the underprivileged populations. Results The wealth inequalities in health measured by the concentration index provide a familiar and perform adequately in identifying economic inequalities in health. However, the geographic health inequalities identified by the index of dissimilarity appear to provide a more comprehensive profile of health inequalities within a country. Conclusion There is a need for a feasible inequality measure in the health information systems. A country’s geographic health distribution measured by the index of dissimilarity appears to provide a feasible first-step alarm to inform and guide the uptake of equity-sensitive policies.

scholarly journals Low economic growth and health inequalities in a rich country: 27-year Japanese time series

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
A Hiyoshi ◽  
K Honjo ◽  
L G Platts ◽  
Y Suzuki ◽  
M J Shipley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Economic Growth ◽  
Sustainable Development ◽  
Health Inequalities ◽  
Health Inequality ◽  
Time Trends ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Good Health ◽  
Japanese Economy ◽  
Economic Stagnation ◽  
Working Age

Abstract This presentation extends the public health theme in relation to Sustainable Development Goal #8, focusing on the health inequality trend in Japan. it is important to understand whether low economic growth is compatible with a low level of health inequalities. Unlike the UK and USA, life expectancy in Japan continued to improve despite a stagnant economy. Ten triennial waves of a nationally representative survey in Japan, 1986-2013 (n = 731,647) were used. Slope and Relative Indices of Inequality (SII and RII respectively) in relation to net household income and self-rated good health were calculated. Analyses were stratified by sex and age, for children, working-age adults, younger old and older old, given age differences in relation to labour market. Time trends of SII and RII were tested during the period of economic stagnation 1992-2013. In all age groups, prevalence of good health declined slightly from its peak in 1995 but increased after 2007. In 1992 among children, working-age adults and younger old, health inequality based on SII was small, about 10% lower prevalence of good health in those with lowest compared to highest income. Among working-age adults, time trends of health inequalities based on SII narrowed from 1992 and then widened after 2002 (quadratic trends in men and women p < 0.05), resulting in the magnitude of health inequality returning to its level at the beginning of economic stagnation in 1992 but not exceeding it. Time trends in relative inequality (RII) were qualitatively similar to those in absolute inequality (SII). The long-term low-growth Japanese economy appears compatible with maintaining and improving population health and holding health inequalities at current levels. This evidence is of great significance for sustainable development and the health of current and future generations.

Introduction

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca L. Walker ◽  
Michele Rivkin-Fish ◽  
Mara Buchbinder
Keyword(s):  
Health Inequalities ◽  
Health Inequality ◽  
Positive Impact ◽  
Health Justice

The introduction to Understanding Health Inequalities and Justice: New Conversations Across the Disciplines describes the terrain of health justice and inequalities and the multiple disciplinary perspectives that explore it. In the introduction, the editors advance the view that how we approach health inequalities and justice is a matter of great import, and argue for the positive impact multiple disciplinary perspectives may have when engaged in conversations together on these matters. The introduction offers a substantive discussion of normative paradigms informing health justice including egalitarian, libertarian, utilitiarian, rights-based, and principles-based bioethics approaches. In addition to examining each of the three sub-headings of the volume: 1. Interrogating Normative Perspectives on Health Inequality and Justice, 2. Disrupting Assumptions and Expanding Perspectives through Cases, and 3. Rethinking Evidence and the Making of Policy, each chapter is given a detailed introduction and described in relationship to other relevant chapters in the volume.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document