Avg. Impact Points
Recent PublicationsView all
Available from: Michael G Marmot
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To examine whether, in former communist countries that have undergone profound social and economic transformation, health status is associated with income inequality and other societal characteristics, and whether this represents something more than the association of health status with individual socioeconomic circumstances.
Multilevel analysis of cross-sectional data.
13 Countries from Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.
Population samples aged 18+ years (a total of 15 331 respondents).
Poor self-rated health.
There were marked differences among participating countries in rates of poor health (a greater than twofold difference between the countries with the highest and lowest rates of poor health), gross domestic product per capita adjusted for purchasing power parity (a greater than threefold difference), the Gini coefficient of income inequality (twofold difference), corruption index (twofold difference) and homicide rates (20-fold difference). Ecologically, the age- and sex-standardised prevalence of poor self-rated health correlated strongly with life expectancy at age 15 (r = -0.73). In multilevel analyses, societal (country-level) measures of income inequality were not associated with poor health. Corruption and gross domestic product per capita were associated with poor health after controlling for individuals' socioeconomic circumstances (education, household income, marital status and ownership of household items); the odds ratios were 1.15 (95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.29) per 1 unit (on a 10-point scale) increase in the corruption index and 0.79 (95% confidence interval 0.68 to 0.93) per $5000 increase in gross domestic product per capita. The effects of gross domestic product and corruption were virtually identical in people whose household income was below and above the median.
Societal measures of prosperity and corruption, but not income inequalities, were associated with health independently of individual-level socioeconomic characteristics. The finding that these effects were similar in persons with lower and higher income suggests that these factors do not operate exclusively through poverty.
Available from: Simon Hughes
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Representational difference analysis (RDA) was initially used to identify differences between two inbred lines of chickens, line N and line 15I, on which the Compton mapping reference population is based. RDA was subsequently used to identify marker loci targeted specifically to chicken chromosome 16. Chromosome 16 contains the major histocompatibility complex (MHC), nucleolar organiser region (NOR) and Rfp-Y complex. To generate markers specific for this chromosome a bird was selected from the Compton mapping reference population which had inherited N line alleles for the MHC, NOR and Rfp-Y regions on this chromosome. DNA from this bird was compared with pooled DNA from 16 of its siblings, all of which had inherited line 15I alleles for the MHC, NOR and Rfp-Y regions. Initially amplicons were derived from BamHI digested samples, RDA products were cloned after the first round of hybridisation and 113 clones were investigated: 45 of these identified BamHI polymorphisms in this population. Of the 45 polymorphic clones, 17 have been mapped in the reference population so far, and these have identified seven new loci on chromosome 16. Interestingly a group of 16 other loci were linked on chromosome 4. The same birds were also compared by RDA following digestion with TaqI. Again large numbers of clones were generated of which 65 were investigated. Of these 17 clones were polymorphic and of five clones mapped so far three lie on chromosome 16. Two of the loci mapped to chromosome 16 have been used to identify yeast artificial chromosome (YAC) clones.
Information provided on this web page is aggregated encyclopedic and bibliographical information relating to the named institution. Information provided is not approved by the institution itself. The institution’s logo (and/or other graphical identification, such as a coat of arms) is used only to identify the institution in a nominal way. Under certain jurisdictions it may be property of the institution.