scholarly journals Early childhood development and the social determinants of health inequities

2015 ◽  
Vol 30 (suppl 2) ◽  
pp. ii102-ii115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy G. Moore ◽  
Myfanwy McDonald ◽  
Leanne Carlon ◽  
Kerryn O'Rourke
Author(s):  
Magdalena Janus ◽  
Caroline Reid-Westoby ◽  
Noam Raiter ◽  
Barry Forer ◽  
Martin Guhn

Background: The Early Development Instrument (EDI) was developed as a population-level assessment of children’s developmental health at school entry. EDI data collection has created unprecedented opportunities for population-level studies on children’s developmental outcomes. The goal of this narrative review was to synthesize research using the EDI to describe how it contributes to expanding the understanding of the impacts of social determinants on child development and how it applies to special populations. Methods: Select studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals between 2015 and 2020 and incorporating the social determinants of health perspectives were chosen to highlight the capability of the EDI to monitor children’s developmental health and contribute knowledge in the area of early childhood development. Results: A number of studies have examined the association between several social determinants of health and children’s developmental outcomes, including hard-to-reach and low-frequency populations of children. The EDI has also been used to evaluate programs and interventions in different countries. Conclusions: The ability of the EDI to monitor children’s developmental outcomes in various populations has been consistently demonstrated. The EDI, by virtue of its comprehensive breadth and census-like collection, widens the scope of research relating to early childhood development and its social determinants of health.


2010 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Marmot ◽  
Ruth Bell

From the start, the WHO Commission on Social Determinants of Health built its case for taking action on the social determinants of health, unashamedly, on principles of social justice. Quite simply, the Commission stated that health inequities in the sense of avoidable and preventable differences in health between countries, and between groups within countries according to income, occupation, education, ethnicity or between men and women, are unjust. Taking this position has brought praise and blame: praise for the Commission’s boldness in putting fairness on the global health agenda1 in the face of the dominant global model of economic growth as an end in itself, and blame for the Commission’s unworldliness in apparently not recognising that economic arguments push the political agenda.


2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
E Borde

Abstract Background One of the most marked characteristics of the global social structure is the existence of substantial social inequalities in wealth, which also find expression in health inequalities between and within countries. In an effort to provide an overview of the conceptual debates shaping the mobilisation around social determinants of health and health inequities, two of the most influential approaches in the field are compared: the WHO Commission on Social Determinants of Health approach (CSDH), strongly influenced by European Social Medicine, and the Latin American Social Medicine and Collective Health (LASM-CH) Social determination of the health-disease process approach, hitherto largely invisibilized. Methods A comprehensive literature review was conducted in three databases (Lilacs, Scielo, Medline/Pubmed), reference lists of selected papers, and citations in Google Scholar, including book titles. Results It is argued that the debates shaping the SDH agenda do not merely reflect terminological and conceptual differences, but essentially different ethical-political proposals that define the way health inequities are understood and proposed to be transformed. Conclusions While the health equity and SDH agenda probably also gained momentum due to the broad political alliance it managed to consolidate, it is necessary to make differences explicit as this allows for an increase in the breadth and specificity of the debate, facilitating the recognition of contextually relevant proposals towards the reduction of health inequities. Key messages Debates shaping the SDH agenda do not merely reflect terminological or conceptual differences, but distinct ethical-political proposals. Differences need to be discussed and made explicit to guide the development of contextually relevant efforts to reduce health inequities.


PLoS Medicine ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 3 (6) ◽  
pp. e106 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alec Irwin ◽  
Nicole Valentine ◽  
Chris Brown ◽  
Rene Loewenson ◽  
Orielle Solar ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Emily Churchill ◽  
Ketan Shankardass ◽  
Andrea M. L. Perrella ◽  
Aisha Lofters ◽  
Carlos Quiñonez ◽  
...  

Health inequities are systemic, avoidable, and unjust differences in health between populations. These differences are often determined by social and structural factors, such as income and social status, employment and working conditions, or race/racism, which are referred to as the social determinants of health (SDOH). According to public opinion, health is considered to be largely determined by the choices and behaviours of individuals. However, evidence suggests that social and structural factors are the key determinants of health. There is likely a lack of public understanding of the role that social and structural factors play in determining health and producing health inequities. Public opinion and priorities can drive governmental action, so the aim of this work was to determine the most impactful way to increase knowledge and awareness about the social determinants of health (SDOH) and health inequities in the province of Ontario, Canada. A study to test the effectiveness of four different messaging styles about health inequities and the SDOH was conducted with a sample of 805 adult residents of Ontario. Findings show that messages highlighting the challenges faced by those experiencing the negative effects of the SDOH, while still acknowledging individual responsibility for health, were the most effective for eliciting an empathetic response from Ontarians. These findings can be used to inform public awareness campaigns focused on changing the current public narrative about the SDOH toward a more empathetic response, with the goal of increasing political will to enact policies to address health inequities in Ontario.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document