19
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
3 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Changing behaviour: an essential component of tackling health inequalities

      other
      1 , , 2 , 3
      The BMJ
      BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Theresa Marteau and colleagues argue that behavioural and social causes of poor health must be tackled in parallel to reduce inequalities

          Related collections

          Most cited references37

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The COVID-19 pandemic and health inequalities

          This essay examines the implications of the COVID-19 pandemic for health inequalities. It outlines historical and contemporary evidence of inequalities in pandemics—drawing on international research into the Spanish influenza pandemic of 1918, the H1N1 outbreak of 2009 and the emerging international estimates of socio-economic, ethnic and geographical inequalities in COVID-19 infection and mortality rates. It then examines how these inequalities in COVID-19 are related to existing inequalities in chronic diseases and the social determinants of health, arguing that we are experiencing a syndemic pandemic. It then explores the potential consequences for health inequalities of the lockdown measures implemented internationally as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on the likely unequal impacts of the economic crisis. The essay concludes by reflecting on the longer-term public health policy responses needed to ensure that the COVID-19 pandemic does not increase health inequalities for future generations.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Closing the gap in a generation: health equity through action on the social determinants of health.

            The Commission on Social Determinants of Health, created to marshal the evidence on what can be done to promote health equity and to foster a global movement to achieve it, is a global collaboration of policy makers, researchers, and civil society, led by commissioners with a unique blend of political, academic, and advocacy experience. The focus of attention is on countries at all levels of income and development. The commission launched its final report on August 28, 2008. This paper summarises the key findings and recommendations; the full list is in the final report.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              The health benefits of the great outdoors: A systematic review and meta-analysis of greenspace exposure and health outcomes

              Background The health benefits of greenspaces have demanded the attention of policymakers since the 1800s. Although much evidence suggests greenspace exposure is beneficial for health, there exists no systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesise and quantify the impact of greenspace on a wide range of health outcomes. Objective To quantify evidence of the impact of greenspace on a wide range of health outcomes. Methods We searched five online databases and reference lists up to January 2017. Studies satisfying a priori eligibility criteria were evaluated independently by two authors. Results We included 103 observational and 40 interventional studies investigating ~100 health outcomes. Meta-analysis results showed increased greenspace exposure was associated with decreased salivary cortisol −0.05 (95% CI −0.07, −0.04), heart rate −2.57 (95% CI −4.30, −0.83), diastolic blood pressure −1.97 (95% CI −3.45, −0.19), HDL cholesterol −0.03 (95% CI −0.05, <-0.01), low frequency heart rate variability (HRV) −0.06 (95% CI −0.08, −0.03) and increased high frequency HRV 91.87 (95% CI 50.92, 132.82), as well as decreased risk of preterm birth 0.87 (95% CI 0.80, 0.94), type II diabetes 0.72 (95% CI 0.61, 0.85), all-cause mortality 0.69 (95% CI 0.55, 0.87), small size for gestational age 0.81 (95% CI 0.76, 0.86), cardiovascular mortality 0.84 (95% CI 0.76, 0.93), and an increased incidence of good self-reported health 1.12 (95% CI 1.05, 1.19). Incidence of stroke, hypertension, dyslipidaemia, asthma, and coronary heart disease were reduced. For several non-pooled health outcomes, between 66.7% and 100% of studies showed health-denoting associations with increased greenspace exposure including neurological and cancer-related outcomes, and respiratory mortality. Conclusions Greenspace exposure is associated with numerous health benefits in intervention and observational studies. These results are indicative of a beneficial influence of greenspace on a wide range of health outcomes. However several meta-analyses results are limited by poor study quality and high levels of heterogeneity. Green prescriptions involving greenspace use may have substantial benefits. Our findings should encourage practitioners and policymakers to give due regard to how they can create, maintain, and improve existing accessible greenspaces in deprived areas. Furthermore the development of strategies and interventions for the utilisation of such greenspaces by those who stand to benefit the most.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: professor
                Role: professor
                Role: professor
                Journal
                BMJ
                BMJ
                BMJ-UK
                bmj
                The BMJ
                BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
                0959-8138
                1756-1833
                2021
                10 February 2021
                : 372
                : n332
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Behaviour and Health Research Unit, University of Cambridge, UK
                [2 ]Department of Social and Policy Sciences, University of Bath, Bath, UK
                [3 ]Institute of Health Equity, University College London, UK
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: T M Marteau tm388@ 123456cam.ac.uk
                Article
                mart061237
                10.1136/bmj.n332
                7879795
                33568384
                10f5bdc3-5a3b-45e3-a736-5e21bca95ef2
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                Categories
                Analysis

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article