4.3 Article

A Theoretical Perspective on Why Socioeconomic Health Inequalities Are Persistent: Building the Case for an Effective Approach

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19148384

关键词

socioeconomic health inequalities; narrative literature review; theoretical models; systems thinking; complex whole-system approach

资金

  1. Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw), Den Haag, The Netherlands [531001314]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite efforts to reduce socioeconomic health inequalities through policies and interventions, these inequalities remain persistent. This paper provides insights into the reasons behind this persistence and proposes theoretical perspectives for improved approaches. These include studying individual determinants of health-related behaviors, considering determinants at both individual and environmental levels, and developing and evaluating effective approaches through systems thinking and stakeholder participation.
Despite policy intentions and many interventions aimed at reducing socioeconomic health inequalities in recent decades in the Netherlands and other affluent countries, these inequalities have not been reduced. Based on a narrative literature review, this paper aims to increase insight into why socioeconomic health inequalities are so persistent and build a way forward for improved approaches from a theoretical perspective. Firstly, we present relevant theories focusing on individual determinants of health-related behaviors. Thereafter, we present theories that take into account determinants of the individual level and the environmental level. Lastly, we show the complexity of the system of individual determinants, environmental determinants and behavior change for low socioeconomic position (SEP) groups and describe the next steps in developing and evaluating future effective approaches. These steps include systems thinking, a complex whole-system approach and participation of all stakeholders in system change.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据