Economic relationships and health inequalities: improving public health recommendations

Public Health ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 199 ◽  
pp. 103-106
Author(s):  
A. Sayer ◽  
G. McCartney
The Lancet ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 390 ◽  
pp. S12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katie Thomson ◽  
Frances Hillier-Brown ◽  
Adam Todd ◽  
Courtney McNamara ◽  
Tim Huijits ◽  
...  

2006 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 427-435 ◽  
Author(s):  
MARTIN POWELL

What Works in Tackling Health Inequalities? Pathways, Policies and Practice through the Lifecourse S. Asthana and J. Halliday Bristol: Policy, Press, 2006Health Action Zones: Partnerships for Health Equity M. Barnes, L. Bauld, M. Benzeval, K. Judge, M. Mackenzie, H. Sullivan Abingdon: Routledge, 2005Health Inequality: An Introduction to Theories, Concepts and Methods M. Bartley Cambridge: Polity, 2004Status Syndrome: How your Social Standing Directly Affects your Health and Life Expectancy M. Marmot London: Bloomsbury, 2004These four texts on health inequalities are all very different books written by leading commentators with different academic backgrounds. This review will concentrate on the policy perspective that may be of most interest to many readers of this journal. It is also arguably the Achilles heel of the health inequalities literature. According to policy makers, much current research on health inequalities was of little use to policy making, and public health researchers have been criticized for political naivety, for lacking understanding of how policy is made, and for having unrealistic expectations (Petticrew et al., 2004: 815–816). Similarly, Klein (2003) points to the problems of ‘making policy in a fog’. The first two texts under review focus on policy and are written by policy analysts.


Author(s):  
Rachelle Meisters ◽  
Polina Putrik ◽  
Daan Westra ◽  
Hans Bosma ◽  
Dirk Ruwaard ◽  
...  

Loneliness is a growing public health issue. It is more common in disadvantaged groups and has been associated with a range of poor health outcomes. Loneliness may also form an independent pathway between socio-economic disadvantage and poor health. Therefore, the aim of this study was to explore the contribution of loneliness to socio-economic health inequalities. These contributions were studied in a Dutch national sample (n = 445,748 adults (≥19 y.o.)) in Poisson and logistic regression models, controlling for age, gender, marital status, migration background, BMI, alcohol consumption, smoking, and physical activity. Loneliness explained 21% of socioeconomic health inequalities between the lowest and highest socio-economic groups in self-reported chronic disease prevalence, 27% in poorer self-rated health, and 51% in psychological distress. Subgroup analyses revealed that for young adults, loneliness had a larger contribution to socioeconomic gaps in self-rated health (37%) than in 80+-year-olds (16%). Our findings suggest that loneliness may be a social determinant of health, contributing to the socioeconomic health gap independently of well-documented factors such as lifestyles and demographics, in particular for young adults. Public health policies targeting socioeconomic health inequalities could benefit from integrating loneliness into their policies, especially for young adults.


2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
C Copperstone ◽  
M Bonello

Abstract Background Addressing health inequalities is a crucial public health issue. It is thus imperative that health professionals are equipped with explicit competences to recognise and address health inequalities. Methods This is a multi-phase mixed-methods study exploring health inequalities and training within professional health curricula at the University of Malta. Phase One consists of a scoping study which explores whether and how health inequalities feature within the health professions' undergraduate curricula. This involved a systematic search of undergraduate health professional curricula, including competency profiles in each programme of study, using information available in the public domain. Academic year reviewed was 2019-2020. To ensure harmonisation, the two independent reviewers used the following search strategy: a) using a keyword descriptive approach (MeSH terms divided into two levels: direct, level one, and more general keywords, level two) and b) a more subjective approach to assess wider topic elements. Results Preliminary results emanating from mapping of 19 different programmes of study will be presented. A wide range of occurrences, from zero occurrences in some programmes to a maximum of one occurrence for level one and 12 for level two keywords in other programmes, was observed. Conclusions There is a wide disparity between the awareness of and training of inequalities across different professional training programmes. This provides the groundwork for Phase Two of this research during which public health stakeholders' attitudes and perceptions on health professional training and current practices will be explored. Findings from this study will provide the evidence and the impetus for possible interdisciplinary modules and/or continuous professional development programmes in health inequalities. Key messages The need for developing short courses/reviewing health curricula to incorporate health inequalities is encouraged. Public health professionals have a responsibility to address health inequalities in their professional practice.


2015 ◽  
pp. 265-281
Author(s):  
Katherine Smith ◽  
Ellen Stewart ◽  
Peter Donnelly ◽  
Ben McKendrick

2021 ◽  
pp. 351-364
Author(s):  
Rona Campbell ◽  
Chris Bonell

This chapter examines the issues to consider when developing and evaluating complex public health interventions and signposts where more detailed guidance can be found. It starts by considering what complexity means in this context, including the contribution that systems theory has made. When developing complex interventions we suggest: (i) reading quantitative and qualitative research on similar interventions, preferably within systematic reviews; (ii) consulting stakeholders, including those that the intervention is intended to benefit, to help ensure its relevance, acceptability and ownership; (iii) considering using theory to inform the intervention design and hypotheses to assess in evaluations; (iv) assessing whether the intervention could operate at more than one level (from individual through to policy) to increase its chances of success; and (v) reflecting on issues of equity and how the intervention could reduce health inequalities.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document