Framing Health Equity: US Health Disparities in Comparative Perspective

Lynch, Julia; Perera, Isabel M.

doi:10.1215/03616878-3940450

Cited by 46 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We recognise that focusing on SES neglects other characteristics 30 and the analysis could be strengthened by consideration of the full range of factors in the PROGRESS-plus framework 18,26,30 . U.S. research and policy may focus on race/ethnicity (rather than socioeconomic disadvantage) 89 , which has not been captured here. As the original overview excluded reviews of interventions for populations at higher risk (See Vojt et al 2018 for an overview focused on interventions for vulnerable groups) 90 , we may underestimate consideration of disadvantage.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Socioeconomic inequalities and the equity impact of population-level interventions for adolescent health: an overview of systematic reviews

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Socioeconomic inequalities and the equity impact of population-level interventions for adolescent health: An overview of systematic reviews ABSTRACTObjectives: Despite robust evidence on health inequalities in adulthood, less attention has been paid to inequalities in adolescence. The aim of this overview was to examine systematic review (SR) evidence on the equity impact of population-level interventions intended to improve health, happiness and wellbeing for adolescents.Study Design: An overview (review of systematic reviews).Methods: Eleven electronic databases were systematically searched to identify SRs of population-level interventions for adolescent health. A secondary data analysis of socioeconomic inequality was conducted to identify whether SRs reported on primary studies in terms of disadvantage, by measures of socioeconomic status (SES) and by differential effects.Results: 35,310 review titles were screened; 566 full texts were retrieved and 140 SRs met the predefined selection criteria. Differential intervention effects were considered in 42/140 (30%) SRs, 18/140 (13%) reported primary studies using an SES measure and 16/140 (11%) explicitly reported differential effects. 15/140 SRs (11%) explicitly focused on socioeconomic inequalities; of these 4/15 reported differential intervention effects in more detail, 7/15 concluded there was insufficient primary evidence to identify the impact of interventions on socioeconomic inequalities and 4/15 planned to examine differential effects by SES, but this was not reported further. Conclusions:Our overview identifies that there is limited SR evidence on the equity impact of population-level interventions for adolescent health. Strengthening the evidence on whether interventions narrow or widen inequalities for adolescents must be a priority for public health research.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Socioeconomic inequalities and the equity impact of population-level interventions for adolescent health: an overview of systematic reviews

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, it is critical to consider race and ethnicity (Lynch and Perera, 2017). While racism has been identified as a social determinant of health, there is a significant lack of research or policy to address it (Bailey et al, 2017;Rafferty et al, 2015).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

What has economics got to do with it? The impact of socioeconomic factors on mental health and the case for collective action

Macintyre

Ferris²,

Gonçalves

et al. 2018

Palgrave Commun

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A clear link exists between social and economic inequality and poor mental health. There is a social gradient in mental health, and higher levels of income inequality are linked to higher prevalence of mental illness. Despite this, in the late 20th and early 21st century, psychiatric and psychological perspectives have dominated mental health research and policy, obscuring root socioeconomic contributors. Drawing on contemporary research on the social determinants of mental health, with particular reference to Europe and the U.S., this paper argues that a sharper focus on socioeconomic factors is required in research and policy to address inequalities in mental health. Current attempts to move this direction include: evaluation of the impact of economic policies on mental health, community-based partnerships, increased professional awareness and advocacy on socioeconomic factors. This necessitates greater understanding of the barriers to such actions. This paper argues that advancing 'upstream' approaches to population mental health requires an interdisciplinary research vision that supports greater understanding of the role of socioeconomic factors. It also demands collective cross-sectoral action through changes in social and economic policy, as well as economic frameworks that move beyond an exclusive focus on economic growth to embrace collective and societal wellbeing.

show abstract

“…From a policy perspective, in view of what ails the U.S. health‐care system, including increasing costs, low levels of quality, and concerns about health‐care access, this was time the nation could ill afford to lose. Americans, particularly the most vulnerable, are paying the price, literally in many ways, via high premiums and out‐of‐pocket costs, inequities, limited access to services, and often questionable quality of care (Glied & Sacarny, ; Haeder, Weimer, & Mukamel, ; Lynch & Perera, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Political Science and U.S. Health Policy in the Era of the Affordable Care Act

Haeder¹

2020

Policy Studies Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Few laws have a profound and lasting impact on an entire political system. The Affordable Care Act (ACA), despite its incremental nature and bipartisan heritage, has been one of those remarkable landmarks. Even a decade after its passage, the political struggle is far from over, as the ACA is still facing near constant threats from the incumbent president, Congress, the courts, statehouses, attorneys general, and governors across the nation. How have political scientists responded to the continued struggle? This article provides an overview of the effects of health reform and the ACA on political science research since 2008. While political scientists have written much about the subject, coverage has been distinctly uneven within the discipline. Indeed, it has almost been entirely confined to scholars of public and health policy. Nonetheless, there have been important contributions across disciplinary fields. This article provides an overview of contributions embedded within the study of federalism, policy feedback effects, and political framing. It concludes by emphasizing the need for more engaged scholarship on health policy issues from across the entire discipline, and by highlighting other areas of study that could benefit from broader attention by political scientists.

show abstract

Framing Health Equity: US Health Disparities in Comparative Perspective

Cited by 46 publications

References 31 publications

Socioeconomic inequalities and the equity impact of population-level interventions for adolescent health: an overview of systematic reviews

Socioeconomic inequalities and the equity impact of population-level interventions for adolescent health: an overview of systematic reviews

What has economics got to do with it? The impact of socioeconomic factors on mental health and the case for collective action

Political Science and U.S. Health Policy in the Era of the Affordable Care Act

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About