Measuring inequalities in health: What do we know? What do we need to know?

We argue that policy analysis aiming at curving inequalities in health calls for a better understanding of what we know about its measurement pathways. Assuming that health is a good that individuals trade off against other goods, unavoidable health inequalities result when after controlling for unavoidable factors (e.g., age and gender), differences in socioeconomic status of an individual systemically engender differences in health outcomes. However, the measurement of such inequality and underpinning reasons behind are not suggestive of a clear picture. In reviewing the literature, we conclude that it is unclear what the evidence suggests about the reasons for health inequalities as well as the best possible instruments to measure both inequality and socioeconomic health gradients. We provide an evaluation of the different sources of health inequity and we draw upon measurement issues and their policy significance.     

How do we make health impact assessment fit for purpose?

Progress has been made in recent years in the process of health impact assessment (HIA), including community involvement. The technical side is less well developed. A minimum requirement is that there should be some consistency or robustness, so that the outcome of an HIA does not depend just on who happens to carry it out, that it is not easily swayed by the vested interests that typically surround any project, and that it can withstand legal challenge. Validity is an important criterion, as well as repeatability, as the latter can be achieved merely by propagating errors. All types of evidence should be considered legitimate, including qualitative and quantitative methods. The quality of evidence, and its generalisability, need to be carefully assessed; we should leave behind the divisive discourse around "positivism". Typically there is less information on the links from interventions (policies or projects) to changes in determinants of health than there is on the immediate precursors of health and ill-health. A practical question is, how the best existing knowledge can be made available to HIA practitioners. Other issues are more tractable than is often thought, e.g. that an HIA has to be able to trade off positive and negative impacts to different groups of people, and that the complexity of social causation prevents clear analysis of cause and effect.     

Urban health in developing countries: What do we know and where do we go?

The world became mainly urban in 2007. It is thus timely to review the state of knowledge about urban health and the current priorities for research and action. This article considers both health determinants and outcomes in low-income urban areas of developing countries. The need to study urban health in a multi-level and multi-sectoral way is highlighted and priorities for research are identified. Interventions such as the Healthy Cities project are considered and obstacles to the effective implementation of urban health programmes are discussed. Concepts such as the double burden of ill health and the urban penalty are re-visited. Finally, a call for a shift from 'vulnerability' to 'resilience' is presented.     

What is population health?

Population health is a relatively new term that has not yet been precisely defined. Is it a concept of health or a field of study of health determinants? We propose that the definition be "the health outcomes of a group of individuals, including the distribution of such outcomes within the group," and we argue that the field of population health includes health outcomes, patterns of health determinants, and policies and interventions that link these two. We present a rationale for this definition and note its differentiation from public health, health promotion, and social epidemiology. We invite critiques and discussion that may lead to some consensus on this emerging concept.     

What do we know about promoting mental health through schools?

There is a growing evidence base on what schools need to do to promote mental health effectively. There is strong evidence that they need first and foremost to use a whole school approach. This shapes the social contexts which promote mental health and which provide a backdrop of measures to prevent mental health disorders. In this context the targeting of those with particular needs and the work of the specialist services can be much more effective. Schools need to use positive models of mental health, which emphasise well being and competence not just illness--this will help overcome problems of stigma and denial and promote the idea of mental health as 'everyone's business'. The most effective programmes in schools which address mental health have the following characteristics: They provide a backdrop of universal provision to promote the mental health of all and then target those with special needs effectively. They are multi-dimensional and coherent. They create supportive climates that promote warmth, empathy, positive expectations and clear boundaries. They tackle mental health problems early when they first manifest themselves and then take a long term, developmental approach which does not expect immediate answers. They identify and target vulnerable and at risk groups and help people to acquire the skills and competences that underlie mental health. They involve end users and their families in ways that encourage a feeling of ownership and participation, and provide effective training for those who run the programmes, including helping them to promote their own mental health. Using these starting points, we need to develop a rigorous evidence-based approach on this issue. We also require the facilitation of the dissemination of such research findings while encouraging new and innovative approaches.     

What do we know about... Oral health for families?

The author outlines improvements in Britain's dental health and summarises practical advice to pass on to families with young children and adults of all ages. The importance of fluoride and moderating the frequency of snacks is emphasised. Current thinking on diet and dental decay is discussed, including new developments in our understanding of the part played by carbohydrates, which is less simplistic than previously thought.     

Influenza as an issue on the agenda of health care workers: What can we do? What do we need?

ESWI recommends that the 25 European Union nations strive to vaccinate one-third of their collective population every year by 2010. This translates into an annual vaccine usage of 150 million doses for a population of 455 million. However, the current vaccine usage in Europe is 79 million doses, meaning that only 40% of ESWI's recommended target population is being vaccinated in the EU-25. Indeed, the EU's current risk groups equal about 28% of its population, but it is estimated that less than 62% are being vaccinated with the current vaccine supply--the equivalent of 17% of the total population. Clearly, as ESWI noted in its concluding position paper at the Malta conference, "a large proportion of those traditionally assumed to be at most risk from influenza are not being vaccinated." How to change this and minimize the consequences of a pandemic? "It's very interesting how the arithmetic works, given the goal of immunizing 75 percent of Europe's high-risk group, " said Dr K.Nichol of the University of Minnesota Medical Center who chaired the session. "If you go from a trivalent vaccine to a monovalent one, then you triple the number of doses you can manufacture. Thus, you could produce enough doses for the entire population of the EU." However, there is no coordinated approach in Europe, meaning such an optimistic scenario is unlikely in the medium-term. For the time being, emphasis must be on raising public awareness and raising vaccination rates at the local level, starting with health care workers themselves. Here the role and attitude of health policy officials and--critically--health care workers are crucial. These front-line policy and healthcare professionals constitute both the problem and the solution to a more effective influenza vaccine effort in Europe: they know first-hand the institutional obstacles blocking progress--i.e., lack of resources, poorly focused public information campaigns, etc.--but their own work practices and attitudes can be misdirected, too. To identify the issues and help the participants produce a set of recommendations, ESWI brought in Penny Lawson from to facilitate Dr.K. Nichol to steer this session's workshop debate. The participants were a diverse group of 35 health care workers from Australia, Finland, France, Germany, Malaysia, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the UK.     

Health inequalities and the health of the poor: what do we know? What can we do?

The contents of this theme section of the Bulletin of the World Health Organization on "Inequalities in health" have two objectives: to present the initial findings from a new generation of research that has been undertaken in response to renewed concern for health inequalities; and to stimulate movement for action in order to correct the problems identified by this research. The research findings are presented in the five articles which follow. This Critical Reflection proposes two initial steps for the action needed to alleviate the problem; other suggestions are given by the participants in a Round Table discussion which is published after these articles. The theme section concludes with extracts from the classic writings of the nineteenth-century public health pioneer, William Farr, who is widely credited as one of the founders of the scientific study of health inequalities, together with a commentary. This Critical Reflection contributes to the discussion of the action needed by proposing two initial steps for action. That professionals who give very high priority to the distinct but related objectives of poverty alleviation, inequality reduction, and equity enhancement recognize that their shared concern for the distributional aspects of health policy is far more important than any differences that may divide them. That health policy goals, currently expressed as societal averages, be reformulated so that they point specifically to conditions among the poor and to poor-rich differences. For example, infant mortality rates among the poor or the differences in infant mortality between rich and poor sectors would be more useful indicators than the average infant mortality rates for the whole population.     

Program outcome data: what do we measure? What does it mean? How does it lead to improvement?

Outcome evaluation in nursing education has moved away from the long-held focus on student behaviors and skills at graduation to include student traits--for example, critical thinking and clinical decision-making capability, satisfaction data, standardized testing results, and myriad other information that can be used to assess the overall quality of an educational program. This article describes one college of nursing's multi-trait, multi-method model for program outcomes evaluation. The authors include a brief discussion of the way in which multi-trait, multi-method evaluation is integrated with the college's process for continuous quality improvement.     

How can we begin to measure recovery?

Background  

There is a lack of consensus in the addiction treatment literature regarding the definition of substance abuse "recovery".