Inequities in access to information and inequities in health]

This piece presents evidence that inequities in information are an important determinant of health inequities and that eliminating these inequities in access to information, especially by using new information and communication technologies (ICTs), could represent a significant advance in terms of guaranteeing the right to health for all. The piece reviews the most important international scientific research findings on the determinants of the health of populations, emphasizing the role of socioeconomic inequities and of deteriorating social capital as factors that worsen health conditions. It is noteworthy that Latin America has both socioeconomic inequities and major sectors of the population living in poverty. Among the fundamental strategies for overcoming the inequalities and the poverty are greater participation by the poor in civic life and the strengthening of social capital. The contribution that the new ICTs could make to these strategies is analyzed, and the Virtual Health Library (VHL) is discussed. Coordinated by the Latin American and Caribbean Center on Health Sciences Information (BIREME), the VHL is a contribution by the Pan American Health Organization that takes advantage of the potential of ICTs to democratize information and knowledge and consequently promote equity in health. The "digital gap" is discussed as something that can produce inequity itself and also increase other inequities, including ones in health. Prospects are discussed for overcoming this gap, emphasizing the role that governments and international organizations should play in order to expand access to the global public good that information for social development is.     

From causes to solutions - insights from lay knowledge about health inequalities

Background  

This paper reports on a qualitative study of lay knowledge about health inequalities and solutions to address them. Social determinants of health are responsible for a large proportion of health inequalities (unequal levels of health status) and inequities (unfair access to health services and resources) within and between countries. Despite an expanding evidence base supporting action on social determinants, understanding of the impact of these determinants is not widespread and political will appears to be lacking. A small but growing body of research has explored how ordinary people theorise health inequalities and the implications for taking action. The findings are variable, however, in terms of an emphasis on structure versus individual agency and the relationship between being 'at risk' and acceptance of social/structural explanations.     

Health inequities: evaluation of two paradigms

Social work practice in health is shaped by underlying paradigms.To effectively target health inequities, practitioners need to consider appropriate paradigms. In this exploration of how six health paradigms shape theory and practice, the two health paradigms that most attended to health inequalities are social determinants of health and political economy. The article undertakes a critical review of the social determinants of health paradigm and the political economy paradigm regarding how they might shape social work theory and practice targeting health inequities.     

Wealth and health: the need for more strategic public health research

This article argues that public health researchers have often ignored the analysis of wealth in the quest to understand the social determinants of health. Wealth concentration and the inequities in wealth between and within countries are increasing. Despite this scare accurate data are available to assist the analysis of the health impact of this trend. Improved data collection on wealth distribution should be encouraged. Epidemiologists and political economy of health researchers should pay more attention to understanding the dynamics of wealth and its consequences for population health. Policy research to underpin policies designed to reduce inequities in wealth distribution should be intensified.     

Cuba and the Philippines: contrasting cases in world-system analysis

Cuba and the Philippines are countries with broad similarities in historical background yet sharp divergences in political economic developments and relations to the capitalist world-system in recent times. U.S. economic and political interests dominated both countries during the first half of the 20th century. The changes generated by the Cuban revolution resulted in the end of U.S. power in Cuba in 1959. The Philippines, however, remain profoundly dependent on the United States. The approach taken in this article contrasts these countries, asking what the results of their divergent paths are in terms of health and health services. The ability of Cuba and the Philippines to support the primary health care (PHC) approach by fostering socioeconomic justice, authentic citizen participation, and a regionalized health system is examined. It is clear that the last 25 years of socialist-oriented development in Cuba reversed the negative effects of the previous market economy by providing improved social and health services. The success of the political economy and the fully regionalized health system, supportive of the PHC approach in Cuba, is reflected in the high-level health status of the people. In contrast, poverty, gross social and economic inequities, high prevalence of infectious disease, and inaccessible, inadequate, and uncoordinated health services persist in the Philippines after some 85 years of international and national capitalist development. The poor health status of the Philippine people is a direct reflection of this underdeveloped system.     

Globalization, poverty and women's health: mapping the connections

Poverty and other forms of inequity undermine individual and population health and retard development. Although absolute poverty has reportedly declined in recent years, research suggests that relative poverty or the gap between the rich and poor within and between countries has been exacerbated over this same period. There is growing concern about the feminization of poverty, and the impact globalization is having on this important social problem. Gender inequality persists in all regions, and women and girls continue to be over-represented among the world's poor. This suggests that women are not consistently benefitting from the economic, political and social gains globalization can offer. Instead, it appears that poor women and girls, particularly those living in developing countries, are disproportionately burdened by the costs of these swift changes to the detriment of their personal health and well-being. Immediate action is needed to correct these disparities and ensure that globalization supports both national and international commitments to poverty reduction, and the, promotion of women's health and human rights.     

Action on the social determinants of health: A historical perspective

Abstract

A renewed concern with social factors has emerged in global public health, spearheaded by the World Health Organization's Commission on Social Determinants of Health. The coming decade may see significant health gains for disadvantaged populations if policies tackle the social roots of health inequities. To improve chances of success, global action on social determinants must draw lessons from history. This article reviews milestones in public health action on social determinants over the past 50 years. The goal is to bring into sharper focus the persistent challenges faced by social determinants agendas, along with distinctive opportunities now emerging. The historical record highlights the vulnerability of health policy approaches incorporating social determinants to resistance from entrenched interests. The Commission on Social Determinants of Health can consolidate political support by building collaborative relationships with policymakers in partner countries. However, this strategy must be complemented by engaging civil society constituencies. Historically, successful action on social determinants has been spurred by organized civil society demand.     

Health and environmental governance for sustainable development

The United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, Rio+20, will address the challenges for sustainable development (SD), 'green economy and poverty eradication' and the 'institutional structure of sustainable development'. Therefore it will address the governance needed to achieve such goals. This paper discusses the structure of global, regional and national governance of and for health and environment in the context of SD. Among other global actions, the Millenium Development Goals were a significant recent political effort, but despite its advances, it fails when ignores the structural causes of production and consumption patterns and the unequal distribution of power, which are responsible for inequities and impede true development. To achieve SD, proposals must avoid reductionism, advancing conceptually and methodologically to face the challenges of the socio-environmental determinants of health through intersectoral action, including social participation and all levels of government. It is paramount to continue the implementation of Agenda 21, to meet the MDGs and to create 'Sustainable Development Goals'. Regarding the health field, Rio+20 Summit must reassure the connection between health and sustainability - as a part of the Social pillar of sustainable development - inspiring politics and actions in multiple levels.     

Revisiting the social determinants of health agenda from the global South

ABSTRACT

In an effort to provide an overview of the conceptual debates shaping the mobilisation around social determinants of health and health inequities and challenge the apparent consensus for equity in health, this essay compares two of the most influential approaches in the field: 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. It is argued that the debates shaping the equity in health agenda do not merely reflect conceptual differences, but essentially different ethical-political proposals that define the way health inequities are understood and proposed to be transformed. While the health equity 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.     

Global Health Watch Canada? Mobilizing the Canadian public health community around a global health advocacy agenda

Growing poverty, collapsing health care systems, the AIDS pandemic and the widening of health and health care inequities within and between countries all point to the limited success of global public health interventions over the past few decades. Notwithstanding the efforts of multilateral agencies such as the World Health Organization and the many existing contributions from the Canadian community of health professionals, this commentary argues and appeals for further action particularly in relation to the social and political impediments to better health and justice. Specifically, it calls for the development of a robust instrument to assess the impact of Canada as a whole on the state of global health, and to monitor the performance of key Canadian institutions. It is suggested that such an instrument would result in a process that enhances global citizenship and public accountability, and buttresses the efforts of civil society to forge trans-national links in pursuit of a fairer and healthier world. Public health professionals, by virtue of their social standing as well as the nature and tools of their discipline, should be at the forefront of such civic efforts.     

Exacerbating Inequalities? Health Policy and the Behavioural Sciences

There have been calls for some time for a new approach to public health in the United Kingdom and beyond. This is consequent on the recognition and acceptance that health problems often have a complex and multi-faceted aetiology. At the same time, policies which utilise insights from research in behavioural economics and psychology (‘behavioural science’) have gained prominence on the political agenda. The relationship between the social determinants of health (SDoH) and behavioural science in health policy has not hitherto been explored. Given the on-going presence of strategies based on findings from behavioural science in policy-making on the political agenda, an examination of this is warranted. This paper begins by looking at the place of the SDoH within public health, before outlining, in brief, the recent drive towards utilising behavioural science to formulate law and public policy. We then examine the relationship between this and the SDoH. We argue that behavioural public health policy is, to a certain extent, blind to the social and other determinants of health. In section three, we examine ways in which such policies may perpetuate and/or exacerbate health inequities and social injustices. We argue that problems in this respect may be compounded by assumptions and practices which are built into some behavioural science methodologies. We also argue that incremental individual gains may not be enough. As such, population-level measures are sometimes necessary. In section four we defend this contention, arguing that an equitable and justifiable public health requires such measures.     

Health and social inequities in Sweden

Sweden is one of Europe's most egalitarian countries. The social inequities in living conditions have been gradually reduced to a level that is more equal than in most countries in Europe. Even if general health development has been positive during recent years, data reviewed here indicate that there may be adverse effects for some groups which may increase inequities. This article presents results on inequities in health from the Public Health Report of Sweden 1987 and discusses causal mechanisms and implications for health policy.     

Globalisation and global health governance: Implications for public health

Abstract Globalisation is a defining economic and social trend of the past several decades. Globalisation affects health directly and indirectly and creates economic and health disparities within and across countries. The political response to address these disparities, exemplified by the Millennium Development Goals, has put pressure on the global community to redress massive inequities in health and other determinants of human capability across countries. This, in turn, has accelerated a transformation in the architecture of global health governance. The entrance of new actors, such as private foundations and multi-stakeholder initiatives, contributed to a doubling of funds for global health between 2000 and 2010. Today the governance of public health is in flux, with diminished leadership from multilateral institutions, such as the WHO, and poor coherence in policy and programming that undermines the potential for sustainable health gains. These trends pose new challenges and opportunities for global public health, which is centrally concerned with identifying and addressing threats to the health of vulnerable populations worldwide.     

Health disparities in Canada today: some evidence and a theoretical framework

This paper documents contemporary evidence on patterns of health disparities in Canada and suggests theoretical mechanisms that give rise to these patterns. The overall health of Canadians, as measured by life expectancy or mortality, has improved dramatically over the past 30 years and some disparities have diminished slightly (e.g., life expectancy by income group for men), while others have increased (e.g., diabetes for Aboriginal peoples). Arguably the most egregious health disparities in Canada are those existing between Aboriginals and the rest of the Canadian population. This paper focuses specifically on three social determinants and their effects on disparities in health; Aboriginal status, income, and place. Overall we take the approach that disparities in health could be alleviated by reducing inequities in the distribution of these determinants. We further argue that these social determinants are proxies for opportunities, resources and constraints; all of which influence health outcomes. We suggest that policies focus on reducing the social inequities that lead to health disparities in Canada, rather than focusing on the disparities in health alone. Since the social determinants described here have been found to influence an array of disease outcomes, tackling them, rather than their outcomes, may have a greater overall influence on the health of the population.     

Health disparities in Canada today: Some evidence and a theoretical framework

This paper documents contemporary evidence on patterns of health disparities in Canada and suggests theoretical mechanisms that give rise to these patterns. The overall health of Canadians, as measured by life expectancy or mortality, has improved dramatically over the past 30 years and some disparities have diminished slightly (e.g., life expectancy by income group for men), while others have increased (e.g., diabetes for Aboriginal peoples). Arguably the most egregious health disparities in Canada are those existing between Aboriginals and the rest of the Canadian population. This paper focuses specifically on three social determinants and their effects on disparities in health; Aboriginal status, income, and place. Overall we take the approach that disparities in health could be alleviated by reducing inequities in the distribution of these determinants. We further argue that these social determinants are proxies for opportunities, resources and constraints; all of which influence health outcomes. We suggest that policies focus on reducing the social inequities that lead to health disparities in Canada, rather than focusing on the disparities in health alone. Since the social determinants described here have been found to influence an array of disease outcomes, tackling them, rather than their outcomes, may have a greater overall influence on the health of the population.     

Priorities for research to take forward the health equity policy agenda

Despite impressive improvements in aggregate indicators of health globally over the past few decades, health inequities between and within countries have persisted, and in many regions and countries are widening. Our recommendations regarding research priorities for health equity are based on an assessment of what information is required to gain an understanding of how to make substantial reductions in health inequities. We recommend that highest priority be given to research in five general areas: (1) global factors and processes that affect health equity and/or constrain what countries can do to address health inequities within their own borders; (2) societal and political structures and relationships that differentially affect people's chances of being healthy within a given society; (3) interrelationships between factors at the individual level and within the social context that increase or decrease the likelihood of achieving and maintaining good health; (4) characteristics of the health care system that influence health equity and (5) effective policy interventions to reduce health inequity in the first four areas.     

Poverty, environment, and health: the role of environmental epidemiology and environmental epidemiologists

International attention is focusing increasingly on environmental concerns, from global warming and extreme weather to persistent chemical pollutants that affect our food supplies, health and well-being. These environmental exposures disproportionately affect the poor and those residing in developing countries, and may partly explain the persistent social gradients in health that exist within and between nations. We support recent calls for environmental epidemiologists to play a more active role in furthering the global agenda for sustainability, environmental health and equity. We further suggest that the discipline of environmental epidemiology, as well as relevant funding agencies, broaden their focus to include rigorous research on the upstream, larger-scale societal factors that contribute to inequitable patterns of exposure and health outcomes. By widening the scope of our vision and increasing the strength and breadth of the evidence base about how poverty and environment together affect health, we can better participate in efforts to promote social justice and responsible use and protection of the environment, and thus reduce health inequities. That is both a primary mode and rationale for achieving sustainability.     

Health and social inequities in Finland and elsewhere

This review summarizes results of a number of studies on health and social inequities in Finland in comparison with other countries. Comparisons over time have been made when possible. Inequities in mortality in Finland can be compared with data from Denmark, Norway and Sweden as well as England and Wales plus Hungary. All countries show a similar relationship between mortality and level of education. No major changes in this relationship can be observed during the 1970s. Data on morbidity and perceived health complete the picture obtained on the basis of mortality data. Inequities concern various dimensions of health. Taken as a whole, the data suggest that the pattern of health inequities is more accentuated in Finland than in other Nordic countries.     

Health inequities in the United States: prospects and solutions

An overview of the role that social determinants of health play in influencing health is provided. Emphasis is on the impact of economic inequality in creating health inequities among Americans. Economic inequality is seen as impacting health in three ways: increasing economic inequality weakens population health by creating poverty; weakening communal social structures that support health such as social and health services; and decreasing social cohesion and civil commitment. Documentation is provided of the growing degree of economic inequality in the USA and complicating issues of racial segregation are considered. Specific recommendations for addressing economic inequality, from USA, British, and Canadian sources, are presented. These recommendations indicate the need to move from epidemiologic research to public health action, from demonstrating the major impact of economic inequality on community health to the development and implementation of specific policies and programs to reverse the continuing increase in economic inequality.     

Socioeconomic determinants of infant mortality: a worldwide study of 152 low-, middle-, and high-income countries

BACKGROUND: To reach the Millennium Development Goals for health, influential international bodies advocate for more resources to be directed to the health sector, in particular medical treatment. Yet, health has many determinants beyond the health sector that are less evident than proximate predictors. AIM: To assess the relative importance of major socioeconomic determinants of population health, measured as infant mortality rate (IMR), at country level. METHODS: National-level data from 152 countries based on World Development Indicators 2003 were used for multivariate linear regression analyses of five socioeconomic predictors of IMR: public spending on health, GNI/capita, poverty rate, income equality (Gini index), and young female illiteracy rate. Analyses were performed on a global level and stratified for low-, middle-, and high-income countries. RESULTS: In order of importance, GNI/capita, young female illiteracy, and income equality predicted 92% of the variation in national IMR whereas public spending on health and poverty rate were non-significant determinants when adjusted for confounding. In low-income countries, female illiteracy was more important than GNI/capita. Income equality (Gini index) was an independent predictor of IMR in middle-income countries only. In high-income countries none of these predictors was significant. CONCLUSIONS: The relative importance of major health determinants varies between income levels, thus extrapolating health policies from high- to low-income countries is problematic. Since the size, per se, of public health spending does not independently predict health outcomes, functioning health systems are necessary to make health investments efficient. Potential health gains from improved female education and economic growth should be considered in low- and middle-income countries.