Search

Introduction: Accurate measurement of health inequities is indispensable to track progress or to identify needs for health equity policy interventions. A key empirical task is to measure the extent to which observed inequality in health -- a difference in health -- is inequitable. Empirically operationalizing definitions of health inequity has generated an important question not considered in the conceptual literature on health inequity. Empirical analysis can explain only a portion of observed health inequality. This paper demonstrates that the treatment of unexplained inequality is not only a methodological but ethical question and that the answer to the ethical question -- whether unexplained health inequality is unfair -- determines the appropriate standardization method for health inequity analysis and can lead to potentially divergent estimates of health inequity. Methods: We use the American sample of the 2002-03 Joint Canada/United States Survey of Health and measure health by the Health Utilities Index (HUI). We model variation in the observed HUI by demographic, socioeconomic, health behaviour, and health care variables using Ordinary Least Squares. We estimate unfair HUI by standardizing fairness, removing the fair component from the observed HUI. We consider health inequality due to factors amenable to policy intervention as unfair. We contrast estimates of inequity using two fairness-standardization methods: direct (considering unexplained inequality as ethically acceptable) and indirect (considering unexplained inequality as unfair). We use the Gini coefficient to quantify inequity. Results: Our analysis shows that about 75% of the variation in the observed HUI is unexplained by the model. The direct standardization results in a smaller inequity estimate (about 60% of health inequality is inequitable) than the indirect standardization (almost all inequality is inequitable). Conclusions: The choice of the fairness-standardization method is ethical and influences the empirical health inequity results considerably. More debate and analysis is necessary regarding which treatment of the unexplained inequality has the stronger foundation in equity considerations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

INTRODUCTION Innovations in tobacco control interventions are required to ensure continued reductions in global tobacco use, and to minimise attributable morbidity and mortality. We therefore aimed to investigate the perceived effectiveness of current cigarette packaging warnings and the potential effectiveness of cigarettestick warnings across four countries. METHODS An online survey was distributed to adult smokers in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Participants rated (using a 5-point Likert scale) and commented on the effectiveness of current cigarette packaging warnings and text warnings on eight cigarette sticks that prompted smokers to quit. Ratings were analysed using proportional odds logistic regression, and comments were analysed using content analysis. RESULTS Participants (N=678, mean age=44.3 years) from all four countries perceived cigarette packaging warnings as being minimally effective in prompting smokers to quit, citing desensitisation and irrelevance of the warnings, with US participants particularly critical of the text-only warnings. Compared to packaging warnings, the cigarette-stick warnings describing the financial costs of smoking and the effect of smoking on others, were the highest rated in all four countries (OR=3.42, 95% CI: 2.75--4.25, p<0.001 and OR=2.85, 95% CI: 2.29--3.55, p<0.001, respectively) and cited as strong messages to reduce smoking. Half of the participants either 'agreed' or 'strongly agreed' to the use of cigarette-stick warnings. CONCLUSIONS The findings of this study suggest that cigarette packaging warnings may experience a loss of effectiveness over time, eventually resulting in minimal impact on smoker behaviour. Health and non-health focused warnings and messages on individual cigarette sticks represent a novel and potentially effective method for reducing tobacco use. This would complement tobacco control interventions currently employed, resulting in public health benefits. [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]