Add wos sample results library

02-data/intermediate/wos_sample/1bf9866d0116336f66f40f716929ac5b-woodward-a-and-kawa/info.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,124 @@
+abstract: 'It is well known that social, cultural and economic factors cause
+
+  substantial inequalities in health. Should we strive to achieve a more
+
+  even share of good health, beyond improving the average health status of
+
+  the population? We examine four arguments for the reduction of health
+
+  inequalities.
+
+  1 Inequalities are unfair. Inequalities in health are undesirable to the
+
+  extent that they are unfair, or unjust. Distinguishing between health
+
+  inequalities and health inequities can be contentious. Our view is that
+
+  inequalities become `(unfair)'' when poor health is itself the
+
+  consequence of an unjust distribution of the underlying social
+
+  determinants of health (for example, unequal opportunities in education
+
+  or employment).
+
+  2 Inequalities affect everyone. Conditions that lead to marked health
+
+  disparities are detrimental to all members of society. Some types of
+
+  health inequalities have obvious spillover effects on the rest of
+
+  society, for example, the spread of infectious diseases, the
+
+  consequences of alcohol and drug misuse, or the occurrence of violence
+
+  and crime.
+
+  3 Inequalities are avoidable. Disparities in health are avoidable to the
+
+  extent that they stent from identifiable policy options exercised by
+
+  governments, such as tax policy, regulation of business and labour,
+
+  welfare benefits and health care funding. It follows that health
+
+  inequalities are, in principle, amenable to policy interventions. A
+
+  government that cares about improving the health of the population ought
+
+  therefore to incorporate considerations of the health impact of
+
+  alternative options in its policy setting process.
+
+  3 Interventions to reduce health inequalities are cost effective. Public
+
+  health programmes that reduce health inequalities can also be cost
+
+  effective. The case can be made to give priority to such programmes (for
+
+  example, improving access to cervical cancer screening in low income
+
+  women) on efficiency grounds. On the other hand, few programmes designed
+
+  to reduce health inequalities have been formally evaluated using cost
+
+  effectiveness analysis.
+
+  We conclude that fairness is likely to be the most influential argument
+
+  in favour of acting to reduce disparities in health, but the concept of
+
+  equity is contested and susceptible to different interpretations. There
+
+  is persuasive evidence for some outcomes that reducing inequalities will
+
+  diminish ``spill over{''''} effects on the health of society at large. In
+
+  principle, you would expect that differences in health status that are
+
+  not biologically determined are avoidable. However, the mechanisms
+
+  giving rise to inequalities are still imperfectly understood, and
+
+  evidence remains to be gathered on the effectiveness of interventions to
+
+  reduce such inequalities.'
+affiliation: 'Woodward, A (Corresponding Author), Wellington Sch Med, Dept Publ Hlth,
+  POB 7343, Wellington S, New Zealand.
+
+  Wellington Sch Med, Dept Publ Hlth, Wellington S, New Zealand.
+
+  Harvard Univ, Sch Publ Hlth, Dept Hlth \& Social Behav, Boston, MA 02115 USA.'
+author: Woodward, A and Kawachi, I
+author_list:
+- family: Woodward
+  given: A
+- family: Kawachi
+  given: I
+da: '2023-09-28'
+doi: 10.1136/jech.54.12.923
+files: []
+issn: 0143-005X
+journal: JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY AND COMMUNITY HEALTH
+keywords-plus: 'SOCIAL INEQUALITIES; SOCIOECONOMIC DETERMINANTS; 5-YEAR-OLD CHILDREN;
+
+  UNITED-STATES; NEW-ZEALAND; MORTALITY; INCOME; INTERVENTIONS;
+
+  FLUORIDATION; ENVIRONMENT'
+language: English
+month: DEC
+number: '12'
+number-of-cited-references: '49'
+orcid-numbers: Woodward, Alistair/0000-0001-5425-6018
+pages: 923-929
+papis_id: 42541e971057ec90b4c12c6b1131db74
+ref: Woodward2000whyreduce
+times-cited: '140'
+title: Why reduce health inequalities?
+type: Article
+unique-id: WOS:000165346000010
+usage-count-last-180-days: '2'
+usage-count-since-2013: '61'
+volume: '54'
+web-of-science-categories: Public, Environmental \& Occupational Health
+year: '2000'