4.6 Article

Pathways between socioeconomic determinants of health

期刊

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/jech.2003.011148

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Study objective: Many previous studies on socioeconomic inequalities in health have neglected the causal interdependencies between different socioeconomic indicators. This study examines the pathways between three socioeconomic determinants of ill health. Design, setting, and participants: Cross sectional survey data from the Helsinki health study in 2000 and 2001 were used. Each year employees of the City of Helsinki, reaching 40, 45, 50, 55, and 60 years received a mailed questionnaire. Altogether 6243 employees responded (80% women, response rate 68%). Socioeconomic indicators were education, occupational class, and household income. Health indicators were limiting longstanding illness and self rated health. Inequality indices were calculated based on logistic regression analysis. Main results: Each socioeconomic indicator showed a clear gradient with health. Among women half of inequalities in limiting longstanding illness by education were mediated through occupational class and household income. Inequalities by occupational class were largely explained by education. A small part of inequalities for income were explained by education and occupational class. For self rated health the pathways were broadly similar. Among men most of the inequalities in limiting longstanding illness by education were mediated through occupational class and income. Part of occupational class inequalities were explained by education. Two thirds of inequalities by income were explained by education and occupational class. Conclusions: Parts of the effects of each socioeconomic indicator on health are either explained by or mediated through other socioeconomic indicators. Analyses of the predictive power of socioeconomic indicators on health run the risk of being fruitless, if interrelations between various indicators are neglected.

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

4.6
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