The Increasing Disparity in Mortality between Socioeconomic Groups in the United States, 1960 and 1986

Pappas, Gregory; Queen, Susan; Hadden, Wilbur C.; Fisher, Gail F.

doi:10.1056/nejm199307083290207

Cited by 1,312 publications

(666 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

604

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Yet, it is known that socioeconomic status, including income and education, is strongly associated with poor health outcomes, including higher rates of cardiovascular disease, mental health problems, and even death. [70][71][72] The impact of poverty on health begins in childhood and the effects are long-lasting, even in adults that escape poverty. 73 In addition, in the US, life expectancy is lower among those born in low-SES counties compared to those in more wealthy counties.…”

Section: Urban Greening As Place-based Public Health Interventionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nature-Based Strategies for Improving Urban Health and Safety

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Place-based programs are being noticed as key opportunities to prevent disease and promote public health and safety for populations at-large. As one key type of place-based intervention, nature-based and green space strategies can play an especially large role in improving health and safety for dwellers in urban environments such as US legacy cities that lack nature and greenery. In this paper, we describe the current understanding of place-based influences on public health and safety. We focus on nonchemical environmental factors, many of which are related to urban abandonment and blight. We then review findings from studies of nature-based interventions regarding impacts on health, perceptions of safety, and crime. Based on our findings, we suggest that further research in this area will require (1) refined measures of green space, nature, and health and safety for cities, (2) interdisciplinary science and cross-sector policy collaboration, (3) observational studies as well as randomized controlled experiments and natural experiments using appropriate spatial counterfactuals and mixed methods, and (4) return-on-investment calculations of potential economic, social, and health costs and benefits of urban greening initiatives. KEYWORDS Urban nature, Green space, Place-based interventions, Public health, CrimeThere is growing support of place-based programs to help prevent disease and promote public health and safety. [1][2][3][4][5] This movement is largely motivated by increasing findings that public health interventions targeted at individuals or behaviors have limited effect on health and safety outcomes at a population scale. 6 For example, educational programs that promote behavioral change among very specific, targeted population groups may not impact broader societal issues such as the actual contexts within which unhealthy behaviors like tobacco use, lack of exercise, poor diet, distracted driving, and violence occur. 7-9 Moreover, programmatic impact is rarely sustained beyond the small study populations that are targeted. When funding ends, program impact thus also often ends unless, in very rare instances, the program itself somehow becomes institutionalized or part of a larger social norm.Place-based programs rest on increasing evidence that in addition to biological and individual attributes, everyday environments have a potentially strong and Kondo is with the USDA-Forest Service, Northern Research Station,

show abstract

Section: Urban Greening As Place-based Public Health Interventionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nature-Based Strategies for Improving Urban Health and Safety

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…See for example, Pappas et al (1993), Sorlie, Backlund and Keller (1995), Deaton and Paxson (1999), Deaton (2001). Essentially all of this analysis is based on estimating the correlation between the probability of a negative health outcome and income.…”

Section: Correlation Between Income and Bmi The Conditional Meanmentioning

confidence: 99%

Overweight and poor? On the relationship between income and the body mass index

Jolliffe

2011

Economics & Human Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. www.econstor.eu Contrary to conventional wisdom, NHANES data indicate that the poor have never had a statistically significant higher prevalence of overweight status at any time in the last 35 years. Despite this empirical evidence, the view that the poor are less healthy in terms of excess accumulation of fat persists. This paper provides evidence that conventional wisdom is reflecting important differences in the relationship between income and the body mass index. The first finding is based on distribution-sensitive measures of overweight which indicates that the severity of overweight has been higher for the poor than the nonpoor throughout the last 35 years. The second finding is from a newly introduced estimator, unconditional quantile regression (UQR), which provides a measure of the income-gradient in BMI at different points on the unconditional BMI distribution. The UQR estimator indicates that the strongest relationship between income and BMI is observed at the tails of the distribution. There is a strong negative income gradient in BMI at the obesity threshold and some evidence of a positive gradient at the underweight threshold. Both of these UQR estimates imply that for those at the tails of the BMI distribution, increases in income are correlated with healthier BMI values. Terms of use: Documents in D I S C U S S I O N P A P E R S E R I E S JEL Classification:I1, I18, I32

show abstract

“…Worldwide, the top 358 billionaires are worth the combined income of the bottom 2.5 billion people (or 45% of the world's population). The worldwide gap between rich and poor doubled between 1960 and 1991 and continues to grow, resulting in an increasing mortality disparity between rich and poor (Pappas, Queen, & Hadden, 1993;Lantz, House, & Lepkowsky, 1998;Adler, Boyce, & Chesney, 1993). Since 1950, average home size has more than doubled while average family size has dropped.…”

Section: Over-fishing Of the World's Oceansmentioning

confidence: 99%