Socio-economic position and health: what you observe depends on how you measure it.

Sally Macintyre, Laura McKay, Geoff Der, Rosemary Hiscock
{"title":"Socio-economic position and health: what you observe depends on how you measure it.","authors":"Sally Macintyre,&nbsp;Laura McKay,&nbsp;Geoff Der,&nbsp;Rosemary Hiscock","doi":"10.1093/pubmed/fdg089","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A number of different socio-economic classifications have been used in relation to health in the United Kingdom. The aim of this study was to compare the predictive power of different socio-economic classifications in relation to a range of health measures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A postal questionnaire was sent to a random sample of adults in the West of Scotland (sampling from 1997 electoral roll, response rate 50 percent achieved sample 2,867).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Associations between social position and health vary by socio-economic classification, health measure and gender. Limiting long-standing illness is more socially patterned than recent illness; income, Registrar General Social Class, housing tenure and car access are more predictive of health than the new National Statistics Socio Economic Classification; and men show steeper socio-economic gradients than women.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although there is a consistent picture of poorer health among more disadvantaged groups, however measured, in seeking to explain and reduce social inequalities in health we need to take a more differentiated approach that does not assume equivalence among social classifications and health measures.</p>","PeriodicalId":77224,"journal":{"name":"Journal of public health medicine","volume":"25 4","pages":"288-94"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/pubmed/fdg089","citationCount":"140","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of public health medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdg089","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 140

Abstract

Background: A number of different socio-economic classifications have been used in relation to health in the United Kingdom. The aim of this study was to compare the predictive power of different socio-economic classifications in relation to a range of health measures.

Methods: A postal questionnaire was sent to a random sample of adults in the West of Scotland (sampling from 1997 electoral roll, response rate 50 percent achieved sample 2,867).

Results: Associations between social position and health vary by socio-economic classification, health measure and gender. Limiting long-standing illness is more socially patterned than recent illness; income, Registrar General Social Class, housing tenure and car access are more predictive of health than the new National Statistics Socio Economic Classification; and men show steeper socio-economic gradients than women.

Conclusion: Although there is a consistent picture of poorer health among more disadvantaged groups, however measured, in seeking to explain and reduce social inequalities in health we need to take a more differentiated approach that does not assume equivalence among social classifications and health measures.

社会经济地位和健康:你观察到什么取决于你如何衡量它。
背景:联合王国在保健方面采用了若干不同的社会经济分类。本研究的目的是比较不同社会经济分类对一系列健康措施的预测能力。方法:对苏格兰西部地区的成年人随机进行邮寄问卷调查(抽样自1997年的选民名册,回复率50%,达到样本2,867)。结果:社会地位与健康之间的关系因社会经济分类、健康措施和性别而异。限制长期疾病比最近的疾病更具有社会模式;收入、社会阶层、住房使用权和汽车使用权比新的国家统计社会经济分类更能预测健康状况;男性表现出比女性更大的社会经济梯度。结论:尽管处境较不利的群体的健康状况较差,无论如何衡量,在寻求解释和减少健康方面的社会不平等时,我们需要采取一种更有区别的方法,不假设社会分类和健康措施之间是对等的。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信