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

125 lines
3.9 KiB
YAML

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'