Woodward A, Kawachi I
Department of Public Health, Wellington School of Medicine, PO Box 7343 Wellington South, New Zealand.
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2000 Dec;54(12):923-9. doi: 10.1136/jech.54.12.923.
It is well known that social, cultural and economic factors cause substantial inequalities in health. Should we strive to achieve a more even share of good health, beyond improving the average health status of the population? We examine four arguments for the reduction of health inequalities.1 Inequalities are unfair. Inequalities in health are undesirable to the extent that they are unfair, or unjust. Distinguishing between health inequalities and health inequities can be contentious. Our view is that inequalities become "unfair" when poor health is itself the consequence of an unjust distribution of the underlying social determinants of health (for example, unequal opportunities in education or employment).2 Inequalities affect everyone. Conditions that lead to marked health disparities are detrimental to all members of society. Some types of health inequalities have obvious spillover effects on the rest of society, for example, the spread of infectious diseases, the consequences of alcohol and drug misuse, or the occurrence of violence and crime.3 Inequalities are avoidable. Disparities in health are avoidable to the extent that they stem from identifiable policy options exercised by governments, such as tax policy, regulation of business and labour, welfare benefits and health care funding. It follows that health inequalities are, in principle, amenable to policy interventions. A government that cares about improving the health of the population ought therefore to incorporate considerations of the health impact of alternative options in its policy setting process.3 Interventions to reduce health inequalities are cost effective. Public health programmes that reduce health inequalities can also be cost effective. The case can be made to give priority to such programmes (for example, improving access to cervical cancer screening in low income women) on efficiency grounds. On the other hand, few programmes designed to reduce health inequalities have been formally evaluated using cost effectiveness analysis. We conclude that fairness is likely to be the most influential argument in favour of acting to reduce disparities in health, but the concept of equity is contested and susceptible to different interpretations. There is persuasive evidence for some outcomes that reducing inequalities will diminish "spill over" effects on the health of society at large. In principle, you would expect that differences in health status that are not biologically determined are avoidable. However, the mechanisms giving rise to inequalities are still imperfectly understood, and evidence remains to be gathered on the effectiveness of interventions to reduce such inequalities.
众所周知,社会、文化和经济因素导致了健康方面的巨大不平等。除了改善人口的平均健康状况之外,我们是否应该努力实现更公平的健康状况分配?我们审视了支持减少健康不平等的四个论点。1. 不平等是不公平的。健康方面的不平等在某种程度上是不公平或不公正的,因而不受欢迎。区分健康不平等和健康不公平可能存在争议。我们的观点是,当健康状况不佳本身是健康的根本社会决定因素不公平分配的结果时(例如,教育或就业机会不平等),不平等就会变得“不公平”。2. 不平等影响每个人。导致显著健康差距的状况对社会所有成员都有害。某些类型的健康不平等对社会其他成员有明显的溢出效应,例如,传染病的传播、酒精和药物滥用的后果,或暴力和犯罪的发生。3. 不平等是可以避免的。健康方面的差距在某种程度上是可以避免的,因为它们源于政府实施的可识别政策选择,如税收政策、商业和劳动力监管、福利福利和医疗保健资金。因此,健康不平等原则上适合政策干预。因此,一个关心改善人口健康的政府应该在其政策制定过程中纳入对替代方案健康影响的考虑。3. 减少健康不平等的干预措施具有成本效益。减少健康不平等的公共卫生项目也可以具有成本效益。可以基于效率理由优先考虑此类项目(例如,改善低收入女性获得宫颈癌筛查的机会)。另一方面,很少有旨在减少健康不平等的项目使用成本效益分析进行正式评估。我们得出结论,公平可能是支持采取行动减少健康差距的最有影响力的论点,但公平的概念存在争议且容易有不同解释。有一些结果的有说服力的证据表明,减少不平等将减少对整个社会健康的“溢出”效应。原则上,你会期望不是由生物学决定的健康状况差异是可以避免的。然而,导致不平等的机制仍未被完全理解,关于减少此类不平等的干预措施的有效性仍有待收集证据。