Social epidemiology: social determinants of health in the United States: are we losing ground?

Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies, Harvard School of Public Health, USA.
Annual Review of Public Health (Impact Factor: 6.63). 05/2009; 30:27-41. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.031308.100310
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The United States ranks in the lower tiers of OECD countries in life expectancy, and recent studies indicate that socioeconomic inequalities in health have been widening in the past decades. Over this period, many rigorous longitudinal studies have identified important social, behavioral, and environmental conditions that might reduce health disparities if we could design effective interventions and make specific policy changes to modify them. Often, however, neither our policy changes nor our interventions are as effective as we hoped they would be on the basis of findings from observational studies. Reviewed here are issues related to causal inference and potential explanations for the discrepancy between observational and experimental studies. We conclude that more attention needs to be devoted to (a) identifying the correct etiologic period within a life-course perspective and (b) understanding the dynamic interplay between interventions and the social, economic, and environmental contexts in which interventions are delivered.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Higher social capital is associated with improved mental and physical health and reduced risk of premature mortality. We explored the relationship between five measures of structural social capital and 1) intermediate health outcomes (elevated C-reactive protein, cholesterol, blood pressure, and serum fibrinogen) and 2) distal outcomes (cardiovascular and all cause mortality). We did so using the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III 1988-1994 linked to the National Death Index with mortality follow-up through 2006. We employed ordinary least squares regression for the intermediate outcomes, seemingly unrelated regression (SUR) to consider combined effects, and Cox proportionate hazards models for mortality outcomes. We then performed extensive sensitivity analyses, exploring the contribution of various variables and reverse causality. We find that our measures of social capital did not predict statistically significant changes in the laboratory biomarkers we study. Nevertheless, belonging to organizations or attending church >12 times per year were associated with reduced all cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.70-0.93 and HR = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.60-0.86, respectively). In SUR analyses, however, combined laboratory values were significant for all measures of social capital we study with the exception of visits to neighbors. This suggests that some forms of structural social capital improve survival through small changes in multiple measures of biological risk factors rather than moderate or large changes in any one measure.
    Social Science [?] Medicine 05/2013; 85:18-26. DOI:10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.02.007 · 2.56 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In spite of improvements in global health over the 20th century, health inequities are increasing. Mounting evidence suggests that reducing health inequities requires taking action on the social determinants of health (SDOH), which include income, education, employment, political empowerment and other factors. This paper introduces an alternative health education curriculum, developed by the US-based non-profit organization Just Health Action, which teaches critical health literacy as a step towards empowering people to achieve health equity. Critical health literacy is defined as an individual's understanding of the SDOH combined with the skills to take action at both the individual and the community level. Prior to describing our curricular framework, we connect the recommendations of the World Health Organization Commission on the SDOH with the objectives of the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion by arguing that achieving them is reliant on critical health literacy. Then we describe our four-part curricular framework for teaching critical health literacy. Part 1, Knowledge, focuses on teaching the SDOH and the paradigm of health as a human right. Part 2, Compass, refers to activities that help students find their own direction as a social change agent. Part 3, Skills, refers to teaching specific advocacy tools and strategies. Part 4, Action, refers to the development and implementation of an action intended to increase health equity by addressing the SDOH. We describe activities that we use to motivate, engage and empower students to take action on the SDOH and provide examples of advocacy skills students have learned and actions they have implemented.
    Health Promotion International 03/2011; 26(1):4-13. DOI:10.1093/heapro/daq049 · 1.94 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Associations between race, socioeconomic status (SES) and health outcomes have been well established. One of the ways in which race and SES affect health is by influencing one's access to resources, which confers ability to avoid or mitigate adverse outcomes. The fundamental cause of disease approach argues that when a new screening tool is introduced, individuals with greater resources tend to have better access to the innovation, thus benefiting from early detection and leading to better survival. Conversely, when there is no established screening tool, racial and SES differences in early detection may be less pronounced. Most ovarian cancer is diagnosed at advanced stages, because of the lack of an effective screening tool and few early symptoms. However, once detected, racial differences may still be observed in mortality and survival outcomes. We examined the racial differences in diagnosis and survival among ovarian cancer cases diagnosed during 1994-1998, in Cook County, Illinois (N = 351). There were no racial differences in the stage at diagnosis: 51.7% of white and 52.9% of black women were diagnosed at later stages (III and IV). Only age was associated with the stage at diagnosis. Tumor characteristics also did not differ between white and black women. Compared to white women, black women were less likely to be married, less educated, more frequently used genital powder, had tubal ligation, and resided in higher poverty census tracts. As of December 31, 2005, 44.3% of white and 54.5% of black women had died of ovarian cancer. Controlling for known confounding variables, the hazard ratio for ovarian cancer death between black and white women was 2.2. The findings show that fundamental cause perspective provides a potential framework to explore subtleties in racial disparities, with which broader social causes may be accounted for in explaining post diagnosis racial differences.
    Social Science [?] Medicine 07/2010; 71(2):274-81. DOI:10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.03.033 · 2.56 Impact Factor


Available from