Health inequalities: Embodied evidence across biological layers

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

Socioeconomic disparities have been documented in major non-communicable diseases and in their risk factors, such as obesity, hypertension, diabetes, smoking, physical inactivity, unhealthful diet and heavy drinking. However, a key research question has remained unanswered: is there a separate biological embodiment of socio-economic conditions underlying health disparities, additional and independent of those risk factors? As lifelong socioeconomic circumstances cannot be randomised, one way forward is the examination of different biological layers of evidence, including molecular changes.

Related collections

Most cited references 19

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis.

James L Patton (1999)

Varying philosophical and theoretical orientations to qualitative inquiry remind us that issues of quality and credibility intersect with audience and intended research purposes. This overview examines ways of enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis by dealing with three distinct but related inquiry concerns: rigorous techniques and methods for gathering and analyzing qualitative data, including attention to validity, reliability, and triangulation; the credibility, competence, and perceived trustworthiness of the qualitative researcher; and the philosophical beliefs of evaluation users about such paradigm-based preferences as objectivity versus subjectivity, truth versus perspective, and generalizations versus extrapolations. Although this overview examines some general approaches to issues of credibility and data quality in qualitative analysis, it is important to acknowledge that particular philosophical underpinnings, specific paradigms, and special purposes for qualitative inquiry will typically include additional or substitute criteria for assuring and judging quality, validity, and credibility. Moreover, the context for these considerations has evolved. In early literature on evaluation methods the debate between qualitative and quantitative methodologists was often strident. In recent years the debate has softened. A consensus has gradually emerged that the important challenge is to match appropriately the methods to empirical questions and issues, and not to universally advocate any single methodological approach for all problems.

0 comments Cited 343 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Socioeconomic status and the 25 × 25 risk factors as determinants of premature mortality: a multicohort study and meta-analysis of 1·7 million men and women

Silvia Stringhini, Cristian Carmeli, Markus Jokela … (2017)

Summary Background In 2011, WHO member states signed up to the 25 × 25 initiative, a plan to cut mortality due to non-communicable diseases by 25% by 2025. However, socioeconomic factors influencing non-communicable diseases have not been included in the plan. In this study, we aimed to compare the contribution of socioeconomic status to mortality and years-of-life-lost with that of the 25 × 25 conventional risk factors. Methods We did a multicohort study and meta-analysis with individual-level data from 48 independent prospective cohort studies with information about socioeconomic status, indexed by occupational position, 25 × 25 risk factors (high alcohol intake, physical inactivity, current smoking, hypertension, diabetes, and obesity), and mortality, for a total population of 1 751 479 (54% women) from seven high-income WHO member countries. We estimated the association of socioeconomic status and the 25 × 25 risk factors with all-cause mortality and cause-specific mortality by calculating minimally adjusted and mutually adjusted hazard ratios [HR] and 95% CIs. We also estimated the population attributable fraction and the years of life lost due to suboptimal risk factors. Findings During 26·6 million person-years at risk (mean follow-up 13·3 years [SD 6·4 years]), 310 277 participants died. HR for the 25 × 25 risk factors and mortality varied between 1·04 (95% CI 0·98–1·11) for obesity in men and 2 ·17 (2·06–2·29) for current smoking in men. Participants with low socioeconomic status had greater mortality compared with those with high socioeconomic status (HR 1·42, 95% CI 1·38–1·45 for men; 1·34, 1·28–1·39 for women); this association remained significant in mutually adjusted models that included the 25 × 25 factors (HR 1·26, 1·21–1·32, men and women combined). The population attributable fraction was highest for smoking, followed by physical inactivity then socioeconomic status. Low socioeconomic status was associated with a 2·1-year reduction in life expectancy between ages 40 and 85 years, the corresponding years-of-life-lost were 0·5 years for high alcohol intake, 0·7 years for obesity, 3·9 years for diabetes, 1·6 years for hypertension, 2·4 years for physical inactivity, and 4·8 years for current smoking. Interpretation Socioeconomic circumstances, in addition to the 25 × 25 factors, should be targeted by local and global health strategies and health risk surveillance to reduce mortality. Funding European Commission, Swiss State Secretariat for Education, Swiss National Science Foundation, the Medical Research Council, NordForsk, Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology.