Search

The study of socio-economic inequalities from a cross-national perspective has been hampered by the lack of adequate common indices of socioeconomic status that can be used in a self-report survey instrument. This paper examines the construction and the properties of global social indexes in general, and of the Family Affluence Scale (henceforth FAS) in particular. The paper proposes a new strategy for making comparisons of the global index with stratified data, building a revised FAS based on Adapted Canonical Variate Analysis (henceforth ACVA). This alternative strategy for constructing a global index is available in standard software, and the new proposal for stratified data only requires a simple program, which is justified, explained and provided in the text. Data come from the 1998 Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children (HBSC), a WHO Cross-National Study using cluster sampling of schoolchildren from five countries: Denmark, Latvia, Portugal, Scotland and the USA. The results reveal that in every country we would have had a completely different evaluation of the three indicators of Family Affluence if we had used either linear or non linear approaches to compute the global indexes. Moreover, Family Affluence comparisons among countries shows that the relative contribution of the three indicators to the overall FAS, changes from country to country. We conclude that separate indicators of Family Affluence are not equally relevant in each country and, as a consequence, do not contribute equally to the global index. For cross-cultural studies, the strategy for constructing an index should be country specific. The methodological developments presented in the paper open up opportunities to study socio-economic patterning of health among young people in the developed world, since self completed surveys can now employ a common measure of family material wealth. The findings show that the RFAS (Revised FAS) is a useful index of socio-economic status for use in national and cross-national surveys of adolescent health and health behaviour. The new strategy for weighing observed indicators in the index gives it enhanced power to detect inequalities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Low fruit and vegetable consumption is a risk factor for poor health. Studies have shown consumption varies across neighbourhoods, with lower intakes in disadvantaged neighbourhoods. However, findings are inconsistent, suggesting that socio-spatial inequities in diet could be context-specific, highlighting a need for international comparisons across contexts. This study examined variations in fruit and vegetable consumption among adults from neighbourhoods of varying socioeconomic status (SES) across seven countries (Australia, Canada, Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Scotland, US). Methods: Data from seven existing studies, identified through literature searches and knowledge of co-authors, which collected measures of both neighbourhood-level SES and fruit and vegetable consumption were used. Logistic regression was used to examine associations between neighbourhood-level SES and binary fruit and vegetable consumption separately, adjusting for neighbourhood clustering and age, gender and education. As much as possible, variables were treated in a consistent manner in the analysis for each study to allow the identification of patterns of association within study and to examine differences in the associations across studies. Results: Adjusted analyses showed evidence of an association between neighbourhood-level SES and fruit consumption in Canada, New Zealand and Scotland, with increased odds of greater fruit intake in higher SES neighbourhoods. In Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Portugal, those residing in higher SES neighbourhoods had increased odds of greater vegetable intake. The other studies showed no evidence of a difference by neighbourhood-level SES. Conclusions: Acknowledging discrepancies across studies in terms of sampling, measures, and definitions of neighbourhoods, this opportunistic study, which treated data in a consistent manner, suggests that associations between diet and neighbourhood-level socioeconomic status vary across countries. Neighbourhood socioeconomic disadvantage may differentially impact on access to resources in which produce is available in different countries. Neighbourhood environments have the potential to influence behaviour and further research is required to examine the context in which these associations arise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]