Monitoring privilege for health equity: building consensus on indicators to monitor socioeconomic advantage through a modified Delphi survey

IF 4.9 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Amy Carrad , Ashley Schram , Belinda Townsend , Patrick Harris , Fran Baum , Lucie Rychetnik , Steven Allender , Melanie Pescud , Sharon Friel
{"title":"Monitoring privilege for health equity: building consensus on indicators to monitor socioeconomic advantage through a modified Delphi survey","authors":"Amy Carrad ,&nbsp;Ashley Schram ,&nbsp;Belinda Townsend ,&nbsp;Patrick Harris ,&nbsp;Fran Baum ,&nbsp;Lucie Rychetnik ,&nbsp;Steven Allender ,&nbsp;Melanie Pescud ,&nbsp;Sharon Friel","doi":"10.1016/j.socscimed.2025.118193","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The World Health Organization's Commission on Social Determinants of Health highlighted the need to measure and monitor the inequitable distribution of power, money, and resources across society. Efforts to monitor health inequity focus on disadvantage rather than advantage or privilege, and on proximal health outcomes rather than distal social and structural determinants of health. This study aimed to identify a comprehensive set of key indicators to measure and monitor socioeconomic advantage. Following a literature review to establish an initial set of indicators (n = 79), we used a three-round, online Delphi survey to build consensus among a panel of participants with diverse disciplinary backgrounds and with expertise related to socioeconomic inequity. Participants rated indicators for relevance to the concept of socioeconomic advantage using a seven-point Likert scale and ranked priority indicators among selected indicator categories. Thirty-one, 21 and 15 experts—predominantly from Australia— participated in the first, second and third round, respectively. Sixty-four of 76 indicators reached consensus, including all indicators within the ‘Wealth’ and ‘Income/wealth inequality’ categories. Priority rankings of economic indicators were clear: gross income and disposable income were the highest ranked income indicators; net wealth was the highest ranked wealth indicator. Ranking of ‘Connections and signalling indicators’ was less distinct; however, elite secondary schooling, and attendance at exclusive events received the highest mean ranks. Monitoring of these socioeconomic advantage indicators is crucial for identifying whether policy and governance is ultimately shifting the dial on equitably distributing resources for improving health equity outcomes.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49122,"journal":{"name":"Social Science & Medicine","volume":"379 ","pages":"Article 118193"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Science & Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953625005234","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The World Health Organization's Commission on Social Determinants of Health highlighted the need to measure and monitor the inequitable distribution of power, money, and resources across society. Efforts to monitor health inequity focus on disadvantage rather than advantage or privilege, and on proximal health outcomes rather than distal social and structural determinants of health. This study aimed to identify a comprehensive set of key indicators to measure and monitor socioeconomic advantage. Following a literature review to establish an initial set of indicators (n = 79), we used a three-round, online Delphi survey to build consensus among a panel of participants with diverse disciplinary backgrounds and with expertise related to socioeconomic inequity. Participants rated indicators for relevance to the concept of socioeconomic advantage using a seven-point Likert scale and ranked priority indicators among selected indicator categories. Thirty-one, 21 and 15 experts—predominantly from Australia— participated in the first, second and third round, respectively. Sixty-four of 76 indicators reached consensus, including all indicators within the ‘Wealth’ and ‘Income/wealth inequality’ categories. Priority rankings of economic indicators were clear: gross income and disposable income were the highest ranked income indicators; net wealth was the highest ranked wealth indicator. Ranking of ‘Connections and signalling indicators’ was less distinct; however, elite secondary schooling, and attendance at exclusive events received the highest mean ranks. Monitoring of these socioeconomic advantage indicators is crucial for identifying whether policy and governance is ultimately shifting the dial on equitably distributing resources for improving health equity outcomes.
监测卫生公平的特权:通过改进的德尔菲调查,就监测社会经济优势的指标达成共识
世界卫生组织健康问题社会决定因素委员会强调,有必要衡量和监测权力、金钱和资源在整个社会中的不公平分配。监测健康不平等的努力侧重于不利条件,而不是有利条件或特权,侧重于最近的健康结果,而不是远端的健康社会和结构决定因素。本研究旨在确定一套全面的关键指标来衡量和监测社会经济优势。在对文献进行回顾以建立初始指标集(n = 79)之后,我们使用了三轮在线德尔菲调查,在具有不同学科背景和与社会经济不平等相关的专业知识的参与者小组中建立共识。参与者使用七点李克特量表对与社会经济优势概念相关的指标进行评级,并在选定的指标类别中对优先指标进行排名。分别有31名、21名和15名专家(主要来自澳大利亚)参加了第一轮、第二轮和第三轮评选。76项指标中有64项达成共识,包括“财富”和“收入/财富不平等”类别的所有指标。经济指标的优先次序是明确的:总收入和可支配收入是排名最高的收入指标;净财富是排名最高的财富指标。“连接和信号指示”的排名不那么明显;然而,精英中学教育和出席独家活动的平均排名最高。监测这些社会经济优势指标对于确定政策和治理是否最终改变公平分配资源以改善卫生公平结果的方向至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Social Science & Medicine
Social Science & Medicine PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
9.10
自引率
5.60%
发文量
762
审稿时长
38 days
期刊介绍: Social Science & Medicine provides an international and interdisciplinary forum for the dissemination of social science research on health. We publish original research articles (both empirical and theoretical), reviews, position papers and commentaries on health issues, to inform current research, policy and practice in all areas of common interest to social scientists, health practitioners, and policy makers. The journal publishes material relevant to any aspect of health from a wide range of social science disciplines (anthropology, economics, epidemiology, geography, policy, psychology, and sociology), and material relevant to the social sciences from any of the professions concerned with physical and mental health, health care, clinical practice, and health policy and organization. We encourage material which is of general interest to an international readership.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信