10.6.2.
Socio-economic determinants
10.6.2.1.
Introduction
In line with the model of Dahlgren and Whitehead (1991),
social epidemiological research has shown that the socio-economic determinants
are indeed associated to health and life expectancy. The fact someone is
imbedded into social structures and receives instrumental or emotional social
support is significantly associated with mortality and morbidity. Social
isolation kills as confirmed by many studies (for an overview see Berkman and Glass,
2000)
Inequality in health is not confined to the poorest
members of the society, although there is a gradient of mortality and morbidity
across the entire society depending on low education, low occupational standing
and/or small income. Apart from age, sex and constitutional characteristics,
health behaviour, social networks as well as living and working conditions can
strongly influence health. These health determinants are socially patterned
with higher risks in lower status people.
10.6.2.2. Data
sources
The main data sources for this Section are :
·
an
independent comprehensive expert Report on “Health inequalities: Europe in
profile“ (Mackenbach, 2006), commissioned and published under the auspices of
the UK presidency of the EU in October 2005;
·
the
EUROTHINE project, published in 2007;
·
the
Communication on “Unequal Welfare States, Distributive Consequences of
Population Ageing in Six European Countries”. DG Employment and Social Affairs,
2004;
·
the
European project ‘Closing the Gap: Strategies for Action to Tackle Health Inequalities
in Europe’ which was carried out from 2004 to 2007 thanks to the collaboration
of 21 national health promotion and prevention
organisations; and
·
other
documents listed in the References Section.
10.6.2.3. Data
description and analysis
Among the living and working conditions, access to food,
water, housing and health care services are obvious prerequisites for health.
The health burden of adverse job conditions has been discussed in terms of
physical demands and psychosocial stress. Most health determinants are socially
patterned: an inverse social gradient of adverse health behaviour is found
across the life course as early as not being breast fed. Later on, smoking,
physical inactivity, unfavourable nutrition, obesity and high TV consumption is
detected. Moreover, the risk of being socially isolated, having no confidant,
getting inadequate instrumental and emotional support is elevated in low status
people.
With regard to living and working conditions, it is
obvious that nice, healthy food and housing require financial prosperity.
Educational assets are significantly associated with parental social status.
The risk of unemployment and poor physical and psychosocial working conditions
is more prevalent in lower socio-economic groups. Last but not least, the
access to the medical system is unevenly distributed across the society,
especially for what concerns the use of preventive medicine which displays a
strong social gradient.
The higher exposure of vulnerability towards these social
risk factors in lower status groups across one’s life course leads to
substantial inequalities in health and life expectancy in all Western
societies. Often it is even transferred from one generation to the next,
leading to persisting or even increasing social and health inequalities.
Mortality and life expectancy
The expert Report on “Health inequalities: Europe in
profile“ (Mackenbach, 2006) and other documents clearly indicate that:
·
in
all countries with available data, rates of premature mortality are higher
among those with lower levels of education, occupational class, or income;
·
inequalities
in mortality exist from the youngest to the oldest ages and in both genders,
but tend to be smaller among women than among men; and
·
inequalities
in mortality can also be found for many specific causes of death, including
cardiovascular disease, many types of cancers, and injury.
The final report of the EUROTHINE project (EUROTHINE, 2007)
showed that, in the EU, cardiovascular diseases are the main causes of
inequalities, accounting for 33 and 50% of inequalities in mortality
associated with educational class in men and women, respectively, and that
injuries and cancers, particularly lung cancer, are the most important causes
of health inequalities in men than in women (Figure 10.6.2.1). Inequalities in
mortality related to occupation follow a distribution similar to those due to
education (Figure 10.6.2.2). These inequalities in mortality lead to substantial
inequalities in life expectancy at birth (4 to 6 years among men, 2 to 4 years
among women). In many Western European countries mortality differences between
socio-economic groups widened during the last three decades of the 20th century.
This continued into the 1990s and led to considerable increases of the relative
excess risk of dying in the lowest socio-economic groups. One important aspect
is that the widening of the relative gap in death rates is generally the result
of a difference between socio-economic groups in the speed of mortality
decline.
Figure 10.6.2.1. Educational inequalities in mortality in selected
European Countries per cause
Figure 10.6.2.2.
Inequalities in mortality of men
The explanation of this disturbing phenomenon is only
partially known. One aspect which should certainly be taken into account,
however, is that this widening of the relative gap in death rates is generally
the result of a difference between socio-economic groups in the speed of
mortality decline. While mortality has declined in all socio-economic groups,
the decline has been proportionally faster in the higher socio-economic groups
than in the lower. The faster mortality declines in higher socio-economic
groups were in their turn mostly due to faster mortality declines for
cardiovascular diseases. In many Western European countries, the 80s and 90s
were decades of substantial improvements in cardiovascular disease mortality.
This was due to improvements in health-conducive behaviours (e.g. less smoking,
modest improvements in diet and more physical exercise), and to the
introduction of effective health care interventions (e.g. hypertension
detection and treatment, surgical interventions and thrombolytic therapy).
Apparently, while these improvements were to some extent taken up by all
socio-economic groups, the higher socio-economic groups were the ones who
experienced the greatest benefits.
Available evidence suggests that during the late 1980s,
inequalities in mortality were in Eastern Europe at least as big, and perhaps
even bigger than in Western Europe. For example, a study looking at the
differences in mortality per level of education in Finland, Norway, Italy,
Hungary, the Czech Republic and Estonia in the late 1980s,
showed substantial inequalities in mortality in all countries, both among men
and women. Among men, the excess mortality ranged between 50 and 78 per cent in
the three Eastern European countries, as compared to between 25 and 41 per cent
in the three Western European countries. Among women, however, relative
inequalities in mortality were of similar magnitude in the Eastern as compared
to the Western countries. Since the political transition, mortality rates have
changed dramatically in many countries in Eastern Europe, sometimes for the
better (e.g. in the Czech Republic), but often for the
worse (e.g. in Hungary and Estonia), particularly among men. This is probably
due to a combination of (interlinked) factors: a rise in economic insecurity
and poverty; a breakdown of protective social, public health and health care
institutions; and a rise in excessive drinking and other risk factors for
premature mortality. The available evidence clearly shows that these changes in
mortality have not been equally shared between socio-economic groups: in the
countries with available data, mortality rates have generally improved less, or
deteriorated more, in the lower socio-economic groups. Apparently, people with
higher levels of education have been able to protect themselves better against
increased health risks and/or have been able to benefit more from new
opportunities for health gains. An example is provided by Estonia where a
considerable rise of inequalities in mortality has occurred. Evidence from some
other Eastern European countries (Hungary) suggests a similar widening gap in
death rates. The fact this is not seen in some other countries (Czech
Republic), however, suggests that a widening of the health gap in a
period of important political and economic change is not unavoidable.
Morbidity
As for mortality, rates of morbidity are usually higher
among those with a lower educational level, occupational class or income level:
·
substantial
inequalities are also found in the prevalence of most specific diseases
(including mental illness) and most specific forms of disability;
·
over
the past decades, inequalities in morbidity by socio-economic position have
been rather stable; and
·
together
with inequalities in mortality, inequalities in morbidity contribute to large
inequalities in 'healthy life expectancy' (number of years lived in good
health).
Inequalities are also evident in the prevalence of self-reported
chronic conditions per level of education among people aged 25-79, as confirmed
by data of the 1990s coming from eight European countries and indicating that
most chronic diseases have a higher prevalence in the lower educational groups
(Table 10.6.2.1).
Table 10.6.2.1.
Odds Ratio Chronic diseases in eight European countries
Moreover, the
European Commission has also released the Communication on “Unequal Welfare
States, Distributive Consequences of Population Ageing in Six European
Countries”. DG Employment and Social Affairs, 2004. As retired people generally
have lower incomes than employed workers, ageing will lead to a slight rise in
income inequality in Europe in the next 20 years. Larger numbers of people with
lower incomes will in turn lead to higher poverty rates.
Accessibility of health services
While health care systems have contributed to
significant improvements in health across the EU, access to health care remains
uneven across social groups. High risk populations in Europe, indicated by low
level of education, occupational class, income level, or other groups such as migrants,
differ in incidence and prevalence rates, treatment and cure rates, and access
to health services.
A major challenge
is to guarantee to everyone access to high quality care reflecting recent
technological progress while ensuring sustainability. Hence, Member States are
implementing policies to reduce these inequalities, e.g. by: addressing risk
factors through health promotion; reducing the prevalence
and incidence of certain diseases; and ensuring more effective prevention activities
in various settings (at home, school, work). Also important are the steps made
to increase population coverage, address financial barriers towards care,
emphasize promotion and prevention activities over curative care, and address
cultural barriers to the use of services. The Structural funds will be used to
support reform and capacity building mainly to improve access and develop human
resources. A combination of general policies and those tailored to lower
socio-economic groups is needed. Virtually, all Member States have implemented
universal or almost universal rights to care and have adapted services to reach
those who have difficulty in accessing conventional services due to physical or
mental disability or to linguistic or cultural differences. Few have begun to
address health inequalities systematically and comprehensively by reducing
social differences, preventing the ensuing health differences or addressing the
poor health that results from the differences above. This would ensure really
equal access for equal needs. Finally, policies outside the health sector are
also central for improving the health of the population and reducing the
existing gaps in health care provision.
10.6.2.4. Control
tools, actions and policies.
Currently, there are promising strategies and projects at
European, national and local level to tackle health inequalities by recognizing
social determinants for health,. This evidence puts policy makers before a
challenge. Reducing health inequalities has become one of the main issues
within the public health sector in Europe and its member countries. The last
part of this chapter illustrates some strategies which aim at takling health
inequalities, especially by targeting socio-economic determinants at global,
European, national and community level. Examples presented here resulted from a
mapping action in the frame of the European project ‘Closing the Gap:
Strategies for Action to Tackle Health Inequalities in Europe’ which was
carried out from 2004 to 2007, thanks to the collaboration of 21 national health
promotion and prevention organisations (
www.health-inequalities.eu).
Global level
At this level, the work of the Commission on Social
Determinants of Health (CSDH) should be further emphasized. The Commission
supports countries and global health partners to address the social factors
leading to ill health and inequities. It draws the attention of society towards
the social determinants of health known to be among the worst causes of poor
health and inequalities between and within countries. The determinants include
unemployment, unsafe workplaces, urban slums, globalization and lack of access
to health systems (
http://www.who.int/social_determinants/en/).
European level
The European Health and Consumer Protection Directorate
General (DG) has declared ‘Socio-economic determinants of health - health
inequalities’ as an important strand in their past and current public health
strategy (
http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_determinants/healthdeterminants_en.htm). The DG’s action to
reduce health inequalities aims at improving everyone's level of health closer
to that of the most advantaged; ensure that the health needs of the most
disadvantaged are fully addressed; help the health of people in countries and
regions with lower levels of health so that they can improve faster. At EU
level this involves many policy areas including:
·
Economic,
employment and social policy - through the Lisbon process to strengthen the
European economy and - at the same time - ensure social protection and measures
to improve social inclusion.
·
Regional
Policy - to support the economies and health infrastructure of countries and
regions of the EU which are lagging behind or have special needs.
·
Research
- to identify the causes of socio-economic health inequalities as well as
develop and evaluate measures to combat them.
More specifically, the
public health
action programme 2003-2008 supported the development of strategies and measures on
socio-economic health determinants and identified health inequalities using
data from the Community health information system. Health inequalities also
form an important dimension of the
current
Community Action Programme in Public Health 2007-2013. DG aims at encouraging
and supporting the development of actions and networks for gathering, providing
and exchanging information in order to assess and develop policies, strategies
and measures in order to establish effective interventions aimed at tackling
health determinants. Moreover, DG aims at promoting and stimulating Member
States' efforts in this field, for example, by developing innovative projects
which will stand as examples of effective practice, e.g. ‘Closing the Gap’ and
the aforementioned ‘EUROTHINE’.
National level
Member states should develop strategies to improve the
health of vulnerable groups within their societies. A typical example of how
social determinants can be recognized in this sort of strategy has been shown
by Sweden.
The overall aim of the Swedish public health policy
established in 2003 is to create social conditions which ensure good health to
the entire population. It was also established that improving the public health
of the most vulnerable to ill-health is particularly vital. The most important
aim of the bill is to make public health a fundamental part of social policy.
Since public health concerns and is influenced by many different sectors of
society, it is important to set objectives that can act as guiding principles
for the work made within the various sectors. The Swedish public health policy
is based on eleven objectives containing the most important determinants of
public health :
1. Participation and
influence in society
2. Economic and social
security
3. Secure and favourable
conditions during childhood and adolescence
4. Healthier working life
5. Healthy and safe
environments and products
6. Health and medical care
that more actively promotes good health
7. Effective protection
against communicable diseases
8. Safe sexuality and good
reproductive health
9. Increased physical
activity
10. Good eating habits and safe food
11. Reduced use of tobacco and alcohol,
a society free from illicit drugs and doping, and a reduction in the harmful
effects of excessive gambling.
The first six objectives relate to what are normally
considered to be structural factors, i.e. conditions in society and our
surroundings that can be influenced mainly by moulding public opinion and by
taking political decisions at different levels. The last five objectives
concern lifestyles through which an individual can influence him/herself, but
in which the social environment normally plays a very important part. Political
responsibility for implementing the policy is divided among different sectors
and different levels of society (municipalities, county councils and government
authorities). The task of the National Institute of Public Health is to
formulate interim targets as and when necessary and develop indicators to
establish how well the objectives are being fulfilled (
http://www.fhi.se/shop/material_pdf/newpublic0401.pdf).
The horizontal linking of the different sectors involved
in population health is the idea behind ‘Health in all Policies’. Health in All Policies
(HiAP) was the main health theme of the Finnish European Union (EU) Presidency
in 2006 and was called the natural continuation of Finland’s long term
horizontal health policy. While the health sector has gradually increased its
cooperation with other government sectors, industry and nongovernmental
organizations in the past four decades, other sectors have increasingly taken
health and the well-being of citizens into account in their policies. The key
factor enabling such a development has been that health and well-being are
shared values across societal sectors. Finland devoted a conference and reader
to this topic to present how measures in sectors other than the health sector affect
the population’s health and how population health can be promoted through
measures in other sectors . Moreover, a significant step forward in this sector
took place with the Declaration on HiAP, approved in Rome on 18 December 2007
during a Ministerial Conference called jointly by the Italian Ministry of
Health, the European Commission and the WHO/EURO.
Local level
Having mentioned activities at European and national
level, we would like to conclude by presenting some practical examples on how
social determinants can be recognized to tackle health inequalities within
communities. All project examples have been taken from the Good Practice
database of the Closing the Gap project (
www.health-inequalities.eu). Clearly “closing the
gap” is a different objective than “ ensuring good health for the entire
population”; this is clearly highlighted in the English strategy that was
developed since the independent Acheson inquiry, appointed in 1997, that
reviewed the current state of health inequalities and identified the evidence
base for future policy developments.
·
Work:
‘Environment Task Force’ is a Norwegian low barrier method to provide
employment for vulnerable groups. All participants are people who have been
outside the labour market for years and socially excluded. Most of them suffer
from a combination of mental health problems or drug abuse. The project is
located in an area with a tradition of very poor socio-economic situations over
generations. Participants work on a daily basis and carry out social tasks such
as keeping streets clean from rubbish, helping older people from Elderly
Institutions, working with a skilled carpenter in preschools. The ultimate goal
is to help participants to find a regular job. Another goal is to reduce
alcohol and drug abuse and improve health through physical
activity. Indeed, most tasks involve considerable physical
activity outdoors. Further goals are better nutrition and improved
dental care. Rebuilding individual self-confidence is a key task of the
process; the same goes for the development of a social network based on shared
work experience.
·
Education:
The Dutch project ‘Supervision by the youth practitioner’ aims at reducing
school non-attendance rates due to illness. Pupils who are not attending school
because of self reported illness are transferred to the youth physician who
tries to gain insight into the medical and social condition of the pupil. The
intervention contributes to reducing health inequalities by trying to prevent
young people from dropping out of school and thus having no job opportunities.
·
Health
care system: The German Federal Centre for Health Education (BZgA) has
developed a project entitled ‘I go to the U! And You?’ in order to increase the
use of early detection measures (U) in kindergarten children. Originally, these
services aimed at evaluating the physical and psychological development of
children and detect illness and handicaps. Unfortunately, they are not
sufficiently used by socially disadvantaged families. The intervention project
is carried out in socially disadvantaged areas and works on the basis of two
principles: incentive and peer pressure. The kindergarten plays an important
role. Parents are addressed through posters and flyers that raise awareness on
the importance of early detection and on the services available. All children
who frequent U7, U8 and U9 receive a funny T-shirt. When all children in a
kindergarten have got the shirt, a group photo is taken and sent for a
competition.
10.6.2.5. Future
developments
By recognizing the importance of social determinants to
tackle health inequalities, the national health promotion
and prevention organisations have joined in a new European project called
‘Determine’. The European Commission funded project started in 2007 and brings together
a high level Consortium to apply evidence based approaches across policy
sectors in the EU and its member states (
www.health-inequalities.eu).
Bodies from 26 countries will analyse and apply important knowledge on
socio-economic determinants of health, introduce innovative pilot projects,
develop and implement awareness and capacity building programmes. The objective
is to generate greater understanding and change conceptions and approaches
among policy makers and practitioners, so that other policy sectors can take
the issues of health and health equity into consideration when developing
policy.
10.6.2.6. References
Berkman, L. & Glass, T. (2000). Social integration,
social networks, social support, and health. In L.Berkman & I. Kawachi
(Eds.), Social Epidemiology (pp. 137-173). New York: Oxford University
Press.
Dahlgren, G. & Whitehead, M. (1991). Policies
and Strategies to Promote Equity in Health. Stockholm: Institute for Future
Studies.
Dalstra JAA, Kunst AE, Borrell C, Breeze E, Cambois E,
Costa G, Geurts JJM, Lahelma E, Van Oyen H, Rasmussen NK, Regidor E, Spadea T,
and Mackenbach JP (2005): Socio-economic differences in the prevalence of
common chronic diseases: an overview of eight European countries. Int J
Epidemiol 34: 316-326.
EUROTHINE (2007): Tackling health inequalities in
Europe: An integrated approach. EUROTHINE Final Report [On line publication
available at:
http://mgzlx4.erasmusmc.nl/eurothine/uploads/eurothine_final_report_complete.zip]
Mackenbach JP (2006): Health inequalities: Europe in profile [on-line
publication available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_determinants/socio_economics/documents/ev_060302_rd06_en.pdf].
10.6.2.7.
Acronyms
CSDH Commission on Social Determinants of Health