Article

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: 6.47). 05/2009; 30(1):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.

Full-text preview

Available from: harvard.edu
  • Source
    • "The need for theoretical models describing the relationship of researcher identities within communities is made clearer with an understanding of social determinants and power structures long identified by social epidemiology, i.e. poverty, status hierarchies, racism, and corporate-industrial policies, among others (Berkman, 2009; Krieger, 2004; Marmot, 2009; Navarro, 2009; Phelan et al., 2010; Wallerstein et al., 2011; Williams, 2012). Post-colonial theory has added explanatory models for communities of color, the particular histories of genocide, forced migrations, appropriation of lands, and attempted assimilations of indigenous cultures and languages (Duran and Duran, 1995; King et al., 2009); as well as the more hidden micro-aggressions (Walters et al., 2009) and hegemonic discourse that reinforces internalized oppression (Gaventa and Cornwall, 2008). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The practice of community based participatory research (CBPR) has evolved over the past 20 years with the recognition that health equity is best achieved when academic researchers form collaborative partnerships with communities. This article theorizes the possibility that core principles of CBPR cannot be realistically applied unless unequal power relations are identified and addressed. It provides theoretical and empirical perspectives for understanding power, privilege, researcher identity and academic research team composition, and their effects on partnering processes and health disparity outcomes. The team’s processes of conducting seven case studies of diverse partnerships in a national cross-site CBPR study are analyzed; the multi-disciplinary research team’s self-reflections on identity and positionality are analyzed, privileging its combined racial, ethnic, and gendered life experiences, and integrating feminist and post-colonial theory into these reflections. Findings from the inquiry are shared, and incorporating academic researcher team identity is recommended as a core component of equalizing power distribution within CBPR.
    Full-text · Article · Jan 2014 · Critical Sociology
    • "Common to this approach is an investigation of the relationships between childhood SEP, mid-life economic resources, lifestyle factors, and various measures of health in later life, often by focusing on how the key concepts of duration and pathway link them over time (Guralnik, Butterworth, & Kuh, 2006; Kim, 2011; Luo & Waite, 2005; Warren, 2009). Cumulative exposure models address how multiple exposures to disadvantaged circumstances (e.g., persistent socioeconomic disadvantage) over the life course take their toll on health (Ben-Shlomo & Kuh, 2002; Berkman, 2009). It is the duration or clustering of exposure over time that is critical, and can include both repeated and extended exposures to a single factor, or a series of exposures to different factors (Hertzman & Power, 2006; Lynch & Davey Smith, 2005). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Social scientists and public health researchers have long known that social position is related to health and that socioeconomic inequalities in health persist in later life. Increasingly, a life course perspective is adopted to understand the socioeconomic position (SEP)-health dynamic. This paper critically reviews the conceptual perspectives underlying empirical research seeking to better understand socioeconomic inequalities in health in the context of the life course. I comment on the contributions of this work, but also its limitations. In particular, I note the emphasis on understanding the mechanisms linking SEP to health, to the exclusion of research on the institutional and structural factors associated with socioeconomic inequalities over the life course. I also critique the relative absence of gender in this work, and how, by not linking individual experiences to the social policy contexts that shape resources and opportunities, the proximal, rather than the structural or institutional determinants of health are emphasized. I suggest that moving forward, a return to some of the key tenets of life course theory, including contributions from the comparative welfare states literature, may better inform life course analyses of socioeconomic inequalities in health. Specific suggestions for life scholarship are discussed.
    No preview · Article · Jun 2013 · Advances in Life Course Research
  • Source
    • "It may also confer beneficial social connections leading to a quality job that offers health insurance. The quality job may also improve socio-economic status, a risk factor that is also associated with improved biomarker profiles (Alley et al., 2006; Berkman, 2009; Cohen et al., 1997; Davey Smith, Harbord, & Ebrahim, 2004; Ernst & Resch, 1993; Kawachi & Berkman, 2001; Markowe et al., 1985; Muennig, Sohler, & Mahato, 2007; Pradhan, Manson, Rifai, Buring, & Ridker, 2001; Ridker, Hennekens, Buring, & Rifai, 2000). Together, these small impacts may produce add up to large changes in some biomarker profiles, or may add up to small changes in many biomarker profiles. "
    [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.
    Full-text · Article · May 2013 · Social Science [?] Medicine
Show more