Mortality, lifestyle and socio-economic status

Abstract

This paper uses the British Health and Lifestyle Survey (1984-1985) data and the longitudinal follow-up of May 2003 to investigate the determinants of premature mortality risk in Great Britain. A behavioral model, which relates premature mortality to a set of observable and unobservable factors, is considered. We focus on unobservable individual heterogeneity and endogeneity affecting the mortality equation. A MSL approach for a multivariate probit (MVP) is used to estimate a recursive system of equations for deaths and lifestyles. This model is then compared with the univariate probit models that include or exclude lifestyles. In order to detect inequality in the distribution of health within the population and to calculate the contribution of socioeconomic factors, we compare the range measure of health inequality to the Gini coefficient for overall health inequality. A Gini decomposition analysis for predicted premature mortality shows that endogenous lifestyles and unobservable heterogeneity strongly contribute to inequality in mortality, reducing the role of socio-economic status. JEL codes I1 C0

Inequality of opportunity in health: evidence from a UK cohort study

“…There is also considerable work done on the relationship between health and lifestyles; examples include Mullahy and Portney (1990), Kenkel (1995), and Balia and Jones (2008).…”

Social inequalities in female mortality by region and by selected causes of death, England and Wales, 2001–03

“…32 Another explanation of the regional differences is that there may be regional differences in health-related behaviour between regions. Lifestyles have been recognised as contributing strongly to inequalities in mortality 33 and differences in the prevalence of smoking, in particular, have been found to account for much of the variation in mortality between areas. 34 More recently it has been shown in a study looking at self-reported health in women that the strongest independent effect on health was from smoking.…”

Opposite poles: A comparison between two Spanish regions in health-related quality of life, with implications for health policy

“…That is, we have a single observation for each person. Hence we cannot capture the effect of lifestyles on health, as in studies that use longitudinal data[24,25] because our cross-sectional data could reflect an inverse causality. An example of this inverse causality is that the health of smokers worsens gradually until there comes a time when they have to stop smoking.…”