How averse are the UK general public to inequalities in health between socioeconomic groups? A systematic review.

The European Journal of Health Economics Pub Date : 2020-03-01 Epub Date: 2019-10-24 DOI:10.1007/s10198-019-01126-2
Simon McNamara, John Holmes, Abigail K Stevely, Aki Tsuchiya
{"title":"How averse are the UK general public to inequalities in health between socioeconomic groups? A systematic review.","authors":"Simon McNamara, John Holmes, Abigail K Stevely, Aki Tsuchiya","doi":"10.1007/s10198-019-01126-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>There is growing interest in the use of \"distributionally-sensitive\" forms of economic evaluation that capture both the impact of an intervention upon average population health and the distribution of that health amongst the population. This review aims to inform the conduct of distributionally sensitive evaluations in the UK by answering three questions: (1) How averse are the UK public towards inequalities in lifetime health between socioeconomic groups? (2) Does this aversion differ depending upon the type of health under consideration? (3) Are the UK public as averse to inequalities in health between socioeconomic groups as they are to inequalities in health between neutrally framed groups? EMBASE, MEDLINE, EconLit, and SSCI were searched for stated preference studies relevant to these questions in October 2017. Of the 2155 potentially relevant papers identified, 15 met the predefined hierarchical eligibility criteria. Seven elicited aversion to inequalities in health between socioeconomic groups, and eight elicited aversion between neutrally labelled groups. We find general, although not universal, evidence for aversion to inequalities in lifetime health between socioeconomic groups, albeit with significant variation in the strength of that preference across studies. Second, limited evidence regarding the impact of the type of health upon aversion. Third, some evidence that the UK public are more averse to inequalities in lifetime health when those inequalities are presented in the context of socioeconomic inequality than when presented in isolation.</p>","PeriodicalId":22450,"journal":{"name":"The European Journal of Health Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s10198-019-01126-2","citationCount":"18","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The European Journal of Health Economics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-019-01126-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2019/10/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 18

Abstract

There is growing interest in the use of "distributionally-sensitive" forms of economic evaluation that capture both the impact of an intervention upon average population health and the distribution of that health amongst the population. This review aims to inform the conduct of distributionally sensitive evaluations in the UK by answering three questions: (1) How averse are the UK public towards inequalities in lifetime health between socioeconomic groups? (2) Does this aversion differ depending upon the type of health under consideration? (3) Are the UK public as averse to inequalities in health between socioeconomic groups as they are to inequalities in health between neutrally framed groups? EMBASE, MEDLINE, EconLit, and SSCI were searched for stated preference studies relevant to these questions in October 2017. Of the 2155 potentially relevant papers identified, 15 met the predefined hierarchical eligibility criteria. Seven elicited aversion to inequalities in health between socioeconomic groups, and eight elicited aversion between neutrally labelled groups. We find general, although not universal, evidence for aversion to inequalities in lifetime health between socioeconomic groups, albeit with significant variation in the strength of that preference across studies. Second, limited evidence regarding the impact of the type of health upon aversion. Third, some evidence that the UK public are more averse to inequalities in lifetime health when those inequalities are presented in the context of socioeconomic inequality than when presented in isolation.

英国公众对社会经济群体之间的健康不平等有多反感?系统回顾。
人们对使用"对分布敏感"的经济评价形式越来越感兴趣,这种经济评价既能反映干预措施对人口平均健康的影响,也能反映这种健康在人口中的分布。本综述旨在通过回答三个问题,为英国的分布敏感评估提供信息:(1)英国公众对社会经济群体之间终生健康不平等的厌恶程度?(2)这种厌恶是否因所考虑的健康类型而异?(3)英国公众对社会经济群体之间的健康不平等是否和对中立群体之间的健康不平等一样反感?2017年10月,我们在EMBASE、MEDLINE、EconLit和SSCI中检索了与这些问题相关的声明偏好研究。在确定的2155篇可能相关的论文中,有15篇符合预定义的等级资格标准。其中7项引发了对社会经济群体之间健康不平等的厌恶,8项引发了中性标签群体之间的厌恶。我们发现,尽管不是普遍的,但普遍的证据表明,社会经济群体之间对终身健康不平等的厌恶,尽管在不同的研究中,这种偏好的强度有很大差异。第二,关于健康类型对厌恶的影响的证据有限。第三,一些证据表明,当这些不平等在社会经济不平等的背景下呈现时,英国公众更反对终身健康方面的不平等,而不是孤立地呈现。
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信