Do places affect the probability of death in Australia? A multilevel study of area-level disadvantage, individual-level socioeconomic position and all-cause mortality, 1998-2000

Abstract

Background: In Australia, studies finding an association between area-level socioeconomic disadvantage and mortality are often based on aggregate-ecological designs which confound area-level and individuallevel sources of socioeconomic variation. Area-level socioeconomic differences in mortality therefore may be an artefact of varying population compositions and not the characteristics of areas as such. Objective: To examine the associations between area-level disadvantage and all-cause mortality before and after adjustment for within-area variation in individual-level socioeconomic position (SEP) using unlinked census and mortality-register data in a multilevel context. Setting, participants and design: The study covers the total Australian continent for the period 1998-2000 and is based on decedents aged 25-64 years (n = 43 257). The socioeconomic characteristics of statistical local areas (SLA, n = 1317) were measured using an index of relative socioeconomic disadvantage, and individual-level SEP was measured by occupation. Results: Living in a disadvantaged SLA was associated with higher all-cause mortality after adjustment for within-SLA variation in occupation. Death rates were highest for blue-collar workers and lowest among whitecollar employees. Cross-level interactions showed no convincing evidence that SLA disadvantage modified the extent of inequality in mortality between the occupation groups. Conclusions: Multilevel analysis can be used to examine area variation in mortality using unlinked census and mortality data, therefore making it less necessary to use aggregate-ecological designs. In Australia, area-level and individual-level socioeconomic factors make an independent contribution to the probability of premature mortality. Policies and interventions to improve population health and reduce mortality inequalities should focus on places as well as people.

Area disadvantage, individual socio-economic position, and premature cancer mortality in Australia 1998 to 2000: a multilevel analysis

“…Second, (as noted by Turrell for all-cause mortality [44]) numerator and denominator data have been obtained from different sources-the numerator from unit record mortality data compiled from death certificate information and the denominator from 1996 census data. When the numerator and denominator are derived from different sources, analyses are prone to numerator-denominator bias.…”

Further evidence of community education effects on fertility in sub-Saharan Africa

“…More attention has been devoted to this subject over the last couple of decades, especially in rich countries (e.g. Pickett and Pearl 2001;Chaix, Rosvall, and Merlo 2007;Turrell et al 2007), though some work has also been done in poor settings (e.g. Kravdal 2004;Pamuk, Fuchs, and Lutz 2011).…”

Mortality risks in relation to occupational category and position among the Japanese working population: the Jichi Medical School (JMS) cohort study

“…Men in blue-collar jobs had a higher risk of mortality than those in white-collar jobs as reported in Western countries 4 – 6 20. Men in white-collar jobs may have several advantages, including income, working conditions, social networks and education levels compared with those in blue-collar jobs 20 21.…”

“…Several different indicators of socioeconomic status have been investigated, and educational attainment, employment and income are among the most powerful components of socioeconomic status 3. A low occupational socioeconomic status is reportedly associated with increased risks of cancer,4 cardiovascular disease (CVD)5 and all-cause mortalities compared with a higher occupational socioeconomic status among both men and women in Western countries 5 6…”