please respond to [log in to unmask]
Sent by: "The Health Equity Network (HEN)"
<[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
cc: (bcc: Dennis Raphael/Atkinson)
Subject: Re: remind me again...
I think the last point is a useful one, and relates to an issue that has been
bugging me for some time.
In measuring health inequalities and impact on health inequlaities we all seem
to be comparing and contrasting disparities in health status of two
populations with disparities in economic and social advanatage.
Thus comparing the health staus within two populations with comparable social
and economic status, but different smoking status would be extremely
informative. But surely this has been done?
I also think it would be useful to look at the health status of populations
with similar social and economic status, but some with inequality
interventions (say through urban regeneration funding of some sort) and some
without.
This controlled approach would probably tell us more about the effectiveness
of inequality interventions than the before and after assessments that tend
to be done now.
[log in to unmask] wrote:
> Well, that is a good question. There is pretty good
> evidence that not smoking and possibly eating more
> fruit and veg decrease the risk of diseases that are
> major causes of premature mortality. There is also
> a debate on whether this is the case only for people
> who don't have other major health risks such as
> poverty. I would think non-smoking must actually
> be a better choice in strict health terms no matter
> what your economic situation. However, the next
> question is why should anyone living under such
> conditions NOW worry about a disease they might
> get in 20-30 years' time? And the next question is
> about the ethics of threatening people who already
> have so many serious problems with health doom
> unless they begin behaving in a more middle
> class way. I have never actually seen a study
> of disease incidence or mortality in a very
> disadvantaged population comparing those who
> did and did not smoke, come to think of it.
> Someone else might know one?
>
>
> healthDate sent: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 21:46:04 -0400
> Send reply to: Dennis Raphael
<[log in to unmask]>
> From: Dennis Raphael
<[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: remind me again...
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> > Remind me again how exercising, eating fruits and vegetables, and
> > quitting smoking is going to improve the health of Ontarians...
> > --------------------------- News Release
> > Released:July 08, 2003
> >
> > Bitter strikes, rationed services, increasing poverty
> > and homelessness, and a crumbling social safety net
> > legacy of Tory policies
> >
> > Toronto - The Ontario Conservative government's social service
> > spending cuts are a false economy leading to growing poverty and
> > homelessness, less home care support services, fewer affordable child
> > care spaces, and increasing labour disputes in the community agency
> > sector, say members of a social justice labour alliance.
> >
> > Many community-based social service agencies are in a deficit
> > situation, and in an effort to stay afloat financially, are
> > extracting wage and benefit concessions from already low-paid
> > workers. Bitter strikes, like the one now underway at Toronto's
> > Central Neighbourhood House, a community agency that provides home
> > support, shelter and youth services, and child care, are becoming
> > increasingly commonplace in the sector.
> >
>
> Mel Bartley
> Dept of Epidemiology and Public Health
> University College London Medical School
> 1-19 Torrington Place
> London WC1E 6BT
> tel: 0207 679 1707
> mobile: 07740 438775
> fax: 0207 813 0280
--
Message sent with Supanet E-mail
To unsubscribe send one line: unsubscribe click4hp to: [log in to unmask] . To view archives or modify subscription see: http://listserv.yorku.ca/archives/click4hp.html
|
