Regional inequalities in self-rated health in Russia: What is the role of social and economic capital?

Abstract

Using the data from the European Social Survey (round 6, 2012), this article studies regional inequalities in self-rated health in Russia and examines the role that socio-demographic factors and economic and social capital play in these differences. Also, the regional variation in the determinants of self-rated health is analysed. The article argues that there are considerable and statistically significant unadjusted differences in self-rated health across Russian Federal Districts. We elaborated these differences by regression adjustments, with the result that some of the differences were explained by our predictors and some were amplified. The odds for good self-rated health were lower in the Volga than in Central Russia due to age and socio-economic composition. In contrast, the regression adjustments amplified the differences of the Northwest and the South in comparison to the Central District. The odds for good self-rated health were considerably lower in the Far Eastern part of the country than in the Central District, independently of the adjustments. While social and economic capital predicted good self-rated health at the individual level, they did not explain regional differences. Interaction analyses revealed regional variation in some of the determinants of self-rated health. Most notably, the effects of age, trade union membership and volunteering depended on the regional context. This article argues that the healthcare reforms that transfer funding responsibilities to regional administration may be dangerous for the already less affluent and less healthy rural regions. Thus, regional governance has a growing importance in preventing increases in health inequalities.

Gender Gap in Life Expectancy in Russia: The Role of Alcohol Consumption

“…With limited budgetary resources, the social sphere is of lower priority for the Russian than other sectors. Ongoing reduction of healthcare expenditures contributes to the growth of regional inequalities (Grigoriev et al, 2014;Lyytikäinen and Kemppainen, 2016). It is not surprising that the planned figures for life expectancy are constantly being adjusted downwards.…”

Involuntary staying and self-rated health: A multilevel study on housing, health and neighbourhood effects

“…", accompanied by a five-point response scale, ranging from "good" to "poor". Following a typical practice, the variable was dichotomised, and the categories "good" and "fairly good" were combined to indicate the state of good subjective health (e.g., Ahnquist et al 2012;Carlson 2016;Lyytikäinen and Kemppainen 2016). This choice of the cut-off reflects Carlson's (2016) argument that health is a positive state instead of a mere absence of illness, where the respondents who choose the "average" mid-option are assumed to "experience some kind of health problem" (ibid., 4).…”

The association between hardship and self-rated health: does the choice of indicator matter?

“…For example, studies have shown that there is an association between low levels of SES and poor health outcomes 1 : and this association has been noted both at the individual level and the ecological level. 2–6 Yet, despite this well-established association, traditional measures of SES do not capture the differential experience of SES that results from the disparate demands on financial resources across households. 7–8 Therefore, many researchers have called for an expanded conceptualization and operationalization of SES to include other indicators such as wealth, debt, and hardship.…”