Amy Carrad , Ashley Schram , Belinda Townsend , Patrick Harris , Fran Baum , Lucie Rychetnik , Steven Allender , Melanie Pescud , Sharon Friel
{"title":"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","authors":"Amy Carrad , Ashley Schram , Belinda Townsend , Patrick Harris , Fran Baum , Lucie Rychetnik , Steven Allender , Melanie Pescud , 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":"{\"title\":\"Monitoring privilege for health equity: building consensus on indicators to monitor socioeconomic advantage through a modified Delphi survey\",\"authors\":\"Amy Carrad , Ashley Schram , Belinda Townsend , Patrick Harris , Fran Baum , Lucie Rychetnik , Steven Allender , Melanie Pescud , 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}","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}
Monitoring privilege for health equity: building consensus on indicators to monitor socioeconomic advantage through a modified Delphi survey
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.
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.