Suchergebnisse

Car culture, transport policy, and public health / Tord Kjellstrom and Sarah Hinde -- Poverty and inequality in a globalizing world / Ichiro Kawachi and Sarah Wamala -- The consequences of economic globalization on working conditions, labor relations, and workers' health / Christer Hogstedt, David H. Wegman, and Tord Kjellstrom -- Population movements / Pascale Allotey and Anthony Zwi -- Globalization and women's health / Sarah Wamala and Ichiro Kawachi -- Summary measures of population health: controversies and new directions / Daniel D. Reidpath -- Health impact assessment: towards globalization as if human rights mattered / Eileen O'Keefe and Alex Scott-Samuel -- Structural adjustment programs and health / Anna Breman and Carolyn Shelton -- Poverty reduction strategy papers: bold new approach to poverty eradication or old wine in new bottles? / Sarah Wamala, Ichiro Kawachi and Besinati Phiri Mpepo --

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. ...

This Article discusses one financial product developed in the United States and expected to develop in Japan as a result of recent legislation adopted there. The Article examines the high degree of regulation of this new financial product under that legislation and concludes that such regulation, while common in Japan, will delay the full development of the market in Japan. This Article begins with a description of an important financial tool first developed in the United States, the securitization of financial assets. The Article next examines several aspects of the new Japanese legislation and reviews the provisions of that legislation. The Article concludes with brief comments from the Author.

Social epidemiology is the study of how the social world influences - and in many cases defines - the fundamental determinants of health. This second edition elevates the field again, first by codifying the last decade of research, then by extending it to examine how public policies impact health

IMPORTANCE: Socioeconomic factors in the disparities in COVID-19 outcomes have been reported in studies from the US and other Western countries. However, no studies have documented national- or subnational-level outcome disparities in Asian countries. OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between regional COVID-19 outcome disparities and socioeconomic characteristics in Japan. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cross-sectional study collected and analyzed confirmed COVID-19 cases and deaths (through February 13, 2021) as well as population and socioeconomic data in all 47 prefectures in Japan. The data sources were government surveys for which prefecture-level data were available. EXPOSURES: Prefectural socioeconomic characteristics included mean annual household income, Gini coefficient, proportion of the population receiving public assistance, educational attainment, unemployment rate, employment in industries with frequent close contacts with the public, household crowding, smoking rate, and obesity rate. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Rate ratios (RRs) of COVID-19 incidence and mortality by prefecture-level socioeconomic characteristics. RESULTS: All 47 prefectures in Japan (with a total population of 126.2 million) were included in this analysis. A total of 412 126 confirmed COVID-19 cases (326.7 per 100 000 people) and 6910 deaths (5.5 per 100 000 people) were reported as of February 13, 2021. Elevated adjusted incidence and mortality RRs of COVID-19 were observed in prefectures with the lowest household income (incidence RR: 1.45 [95% CI, 1.43-1.48] and mortality RR: 1.81 [95% CI, 1.59-2.07]); highest proportion of the population receiving public assistance (1.55 [95% CI, 1.52-1.58] and 1.51 [95% CI, 1.35-1.69]); highest unemployment rate (1.56 [95% CI, 1.53-1.59] and 1.85 [95% CI, 1.65-2.09]); highest percentage of workers in retail industry (1.36 [95% CI, 1.34-1.38] and 1.45 [95% CI, 1.31-1.61]), transportation and postal industries (1.61 [95% CI, 1.57-1.64] and 2.55 [95% CI, 2.21-2.94]), and ...