Suchergebnisse

The status report provides a review of developments against the data since the publication of the Programme for Action in 2003. It considers progress against the Public Service Agreement (PSA) target, the national headline indicators and against government commitments. The report highlights the challenging nature of the health inequalities PSA target for 2010.

Background and introduction: UK experiences of health inequalities -- Reflections on the legacy of British health inequalities research -- Nordic health inequalities: patterns, trends, and policies -- Reflections on the UK's legacy of health inequalities: research and policy from a North American perspective -- Reflections on the UK legacy of health inequities research, from the perspective of low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) -- Contrasting views on ways forward for health inequalities research -- Axes of health inequalities and intersectionality -- Beyond 'health': why don't we tackle the cause of health inequalities? -- Neoliberalism and health inequalities -- Health inequalities in England's changing public health system -- The equity implications of health system change in the UK -- All in it together?: health inequalities, austerity, and the 'Great Recession' -- Industrial epiemics and inequalities: the commercial sector as a structural driver of inequalities in non-communicable diseases -- Place, space, and health inequalities -- The politics of tackling inequalities: the rise of psychological fundamentalism in public health and welfare reform -- Knowledge of the everyday: confronting the causes of health inequalities -- Socio-structural violence against the poor -- For the good of the cause: generating evidence to inform social policies that reduce health inequalities -- The spirit level: a case study of the public dissemination of health inequalities research -- Conclusion: where next for advocates, researchers, and policymakers trying to tackle health inequalities?

Environmental health inequalities refer to health hazards disproportionately or unfairly distributed among the most vulnerable social groups, which are generally the most discriminated, poor populations and minorities affected by environmental risks. Although it has been known for a long time that health and disease are socially determined, only recently has this idea been incorporated into the conceptual and practical framework for the formulation of policies and strategies regarding health. In this Special Issue of the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (IJERPH), "Addressing Environmental Health Inequalities—Proceedings from the ISEE Conference 2015", we incorporate nine papers that were presented at the 27th Conference of the International Society for Environmental Epidemiology (ISEE), held in Sao Paulo, Brazil, in 2015. This small collection of articles provides a brief overview of the different aspects of this topic. Addressing environmental health inequalities is important for the transformation of our reality and for changing the actual development model towards more just, democratic, and sustainable societies driven by another form of relationship between nature, economy, science, and politics.

It is well known that social, cultural and economic factors cause substantial inequalities in health. Should we strive to achieve a more even share of good health, beyond improving the average health status of the population? We examine four arguments for the reduction of health inequalities. 1 Inequalities are unfair. Inequalities in health are undesirable to the extent that they are unfair, or unjust. Distinguishing between health inequalities and health inequities can be contentious. Our view is that inequalities become "unfair" when poor health is itself the consequence of an unjust distribution of the underlying social determinants of health (for example, unequal opportunities in education or employment). 2 Inequalities affect everyone. Conditions that lead to marked health disparities are detrimental to all members of society. Some types of health inequalities have obvious spillover effects on the rest of society, for example, the spread of infectious diseases, the consequences of alcohol and drug misuse, or the occurrence of violence and crime. 3 Inequalities are avoidable. Disparities in health are avoidable to the extent that they stem from identifiable policy options exercised by governments, such as tax policy, regulation of business and labour, welfare benefits and health care funding. It follows that health inequalities are, in principle, amenable to policy interventions. A government that cares about improving the health of the population ought therefore to incorporate considerations of the health impact of alternative options in its policy setting process. 3 Interventions to reduce health inequalities are cost effective. Public health programmes that reduce health inequalities can also be cost effective. The case can be made to give priority to such programmes (for example, improving access to cervical cancer screening in low income women) on efficiency grounds. On the other hand, few programmes designed to reduce health inequalities have been formally evaluated using cost effectiveness analysis. ...

The government, and the Department for Health and Social Care (DHSC) in particular, is concerned with health inequalities and it believes women in particular are unfairly treated. Women, worldwide live longer than men so why is that unfair to women? The August 2022 DHSC policy paper claimed "this country's health and care system belongs to us all, and it must serve us all. However, sadly, 51% of the population faces obstacles when it comes to getting the care they need." The DHSC policy paper was, naturally, wholly unbiased. As the paper puts it "It's brilliant that we have received almost 100,000 responses from women [sic] across the country."According to the DHSC: "Although women in the UK on average live longer than men, women spend a significantly greater proportion of their lives in ill health and disability when compared with men." Strangely the Office for National Statistics figures, which it cites, do not support this claim: "Female HLE [healthy life expectancy] increased for those aged 10 years and over between 2011 to 2013 and 2018 to 2020, with the increases being statistically significant in those aged 20 years and over (Figure 2)." Disability-free life expectancy (DFLE) remained the same for men vs. women throughout the five years 2015 to 2020 (Figure 4). Shame the figures are not what the DHSC would like them to be.On 25th September 2023, the DHSC ministers wrote to the chief executives of integrated care boards (ICBs). By then the Minister for Women's Health had been joined by the Women's Health Ambassador and her deputy and the Chief Nursing Officer. The letter said that £25M was being made available for "Women's Health Hubs" (at least one per ICB): "Hubs bring together healthcare professionals and existing services to provide integrated women's health services in the community, focusing on improving access to care and reducing health inequalities." Each hub would cost £595,000, but see below, the DHSC cannot know how the money should be spent of why a hub in Darlington should cost the same as one in Mayfair.Equalling the treatment (health cost) given to women and men means they have to be treated for the same health problems.  The flaw in this equality idea is that they don't actually have the same problems.  The male menopause is joked about but, of course, there is no such thing.  One might think assessing the value for money or performance of these hubs would require quite a bit of discussion and serious contemplation so it was hardly generous of DHSC to require 16 questions on the template plus 11 questions on the data sources page to be answered within a week, i.e. issued 22nd September response by 29th September. Template question 16 for example: "Q16. What is the best way for DHSC to access data from your hub to measure or evaluate the implementation and performance of hubs models? If you think a combination of the approaches listed is best then select multiple responses."The interesting thing about Q16 is that the DHSC clearly has no idea what these hubs, or removing the non-existent health inequalities, are supposed to achieve. Shocking.  

This edited volume provides wide-ranging anaylses and reviews of the UK's experiences of health inequalities research and policy to date, and reflects on the lessons that have been learnt from these experiences, both within the UK and internationally

This edited volume provides wide-ranging anaylses and reviews of the UK's experiences of health inequalities research and policy to date, and reflects on the lessons that have been learnt from these experiences, both within the UK and internationally.

Inequalities of one kind or another are a ubiquitous feature of human life. The more aspects of human experience researchers measure, and the greater the accuracy with which they measure them, the more inequalities they uncover. Some inequalities are generally thought to matter more than others: movements are formed to fight for greater income equality and equal rights to democratic participation, but not for an equal distribution of television sets. Inequalities in health are often thought to be particularly difficult to justify. This article examines which health inequalities on a global scale are unjust, and considers who should have the duties to rectify these injustices.