31
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The effects of deprivation and relative deprivation on self-reported morbidity in England: an area-level ecological study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      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

          Background

          Socioeconomic status gradients in health outcomes are well recognised and may operate in part through the psychological effect of observing disparities in affluence. At an area-level, we explored whether the deprivation differential between neighbouring areas influenced self-reported morbidity over and above the known effect of the deprivation of the area itself.

          Methods

          Deprivation differentials between small areas (population size approximately 1,500) and their immediate neighbours were derived (from the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD)) for Lower Super Output Area (LSOA) in the whole of England (n=32482). Outcome variables were self-reported from the 2001 UK Census: the proportion of the population suffering Limiting Long-Term Illness (LLTI) and ‘not good health’. Linear regression was used to identify the effect of the deprivation differential on morbidity in different segments of the population, controlling for the absolute deprivation. The population was segmented using IMD tertiles and P 2 People and Places geodemographic classification. P 2 is a commercial market segmentation tool, which classifies small areas according to the characteristics of the population. The classifications range in deprivation, with the most affluent type being ‘Mature Oaks’ and the least being ‘Urban Challenge’.

          Results

          Areas that were deprived compared to their immediate neighbours suffered higher rates of ‘not good health’ (β=0.312, p<0.001) and LLTI (β=0.278, p<0.001), after controlling for the deprivation of the area itself (‘not good health’—ß=0.655, p<0.001; LLTI—ß=0.548, p<0.001). The effect of the deprivation differential relative to the effect of deprivation was strongest in least deprived segments (e.g., for ‘not good health’, P 2 segments ‘Mature Oaks’—β=0.638; ‘Rooted Households’—β=0.555).

          Conclusions

          Living in an area that is surrounded by areas of greater affluence has a negative impact on health in England. A possible explanation for this phenomenon is that negative social comparisons between areas cause ill-health. This ‘psychosocial effect’ is greater still in least deprived segments of the population, supporting the notion that psychosocial effects become more important when material (absolute) deprivation is less relevant.

          Related collections

          Most cited references34

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

          Income inequality and population health: a review and explanation of the evidence.

          Whether or not the scale of a society's income inequality is a determinant of population health is still regarded as a controversial issue. We decided to review the evidence and see if we could find a consistent interpretation of both the positive and negative findings. We identified 168 analyses in 155 papers reporting research findings on the association between income distribution and population health, and classified them according to how far their findings supported the hypothesis that greater income differences are associated with lower standards of population health. Analyses in which all adjusted associations between greater income equality and higher standards of population health were statistically significant and positive were classified as "wholly supportive"; if none were significant and positive they were classified as "unsupportive"; and if some but not all were significant and supportive they were classified as "partially supportive". Of those classified as either wholly supportive or unsupportive, a large majority (70 per cent) suggest that health is less good in societies where income differences are bigger. There were substantial differences in the proportion of supportive findings according to whether inequality was measured in large or small areas. We suggest that the studies of income inequality are more supportive in large areas because in that context income inequality serves as a measure of the scale of social stratification, or how hierarchical a society is. We suggest three explanations for the unsupportive findings reported by a minority of studies. First, many studies measured inequality in areas too small to reflect the scale of social class differences in a society; second, a number of studies controlled for factors which, rather than being genuine confounders, are likely either to mediate between class and health or to be other reflections of the scale of social stratification; and third, the international relationship was temporarily lost (in all but the youngest age groups) during the decade from the mid-1980s when income differences were widening particularly rapidly in a number of countries. We finish by discussing possible objections to our interpretation of the findings.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Spatial accessibility of primary care: concepts, methods and challenges

            Primary care is recognized as the most important form of healthcare for maintaining population health because it is relatively inexpensive, can be more easily delivered than specialty and inpatient care, and if properly distributed it is most effective in preventing disease progression on a large scale. Recent advances in the field of health geography have greatly improved our understanding of the role played by geographic distribution of health services in population health maintenance. However, most of this knowledge has accrued for hospital and specialty services and services in rural areas. Much less is known about the effect of distance to and supply of primary care on primary care utilization, particularly in the U.S. For several reasons the shortage of information is particularly acute for urban areas, where the majority of people live. First, explicit definitions and conceptualizations of healthcare access have not been widely used to guide research. An additional barrier to progress has been an overwhelming concern about affordability of care, which has garnered the majority of attention and research resources. Also, the most popular measures of spatial accessibility to care – travel impedance to nearest provider and supply level within bordered areas – lose validity in congested urban areas. Better measures are needed. Fortunately, some advances are occurring on the methodological front. These can improve our knowledge of all types of healthcare geography in all settings, including primary care in urban areas. This paper explains basic concepts and measurements of access, provides some historical background, outlines the major questions concerning geographic accessibility of primary care, describes recent developments in GIS and spatial analysis, and presents examples of promising work.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Multilevel analyses of neighbourhood socioeconomic context and health outcomes: a critical review

              K Pickett (2001)
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Int J Health Geogr
                Int J Health Geogr
                International Journal of Health Geographics
                BioMed Central
                1476-072X
                2013
                29 January 2013
                : 12
                : 5
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Liverpool John Moores University, Centre for Public Health, Henry Cotton Campus, Webster Street, Liverpool, UK
                [2 ]University of Salford, School of Health Sciences, College of Health & Social Care, Allerton Building, Salford, UK
                [3 ]Liverpool John Moores University, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Liverpool, UK
                Article
                1476-072X-12-5
                10.1186/1476-072X-12-5
                3623854
                23360584
                70afa71d-c4ab-4442-aa7e-766afac809af
                Copyright ©2013 Zhang et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 3 October 2012
                : 24 January 2013
                Categories
                Research

                Public health
                area effect,relative deprivation,self-reported morbidity,psychosocial pathway
                Public health
                area effect, relative deprivation, self-reported morbidity, psychosocial pathway

                Comments

                Comment on this article