Messer Lynne C
Human Studies Division, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, US Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, USA.
Am J Epidemiol. 2008 Apr 15;167(8):900-4; author reply 908-16. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwn019. Epub 2008 Mar 15.
Monitoring social disparities in health is not a straightforward project. Defining what constitutes a disparity is challenging, and multiple measures have been proposed to track changes in disparity over time. In this issue, Harper et al. (Am J Epidemiol 2008;167:889-899) present seven health disparity measures and apply them to US lung cancer incidence rates (1992-2004). They find that different summary measures provide different answers to the question "Has disparity increased or decreased?" Their findings leave us uncertain how to use and interpret these measures to track changes in social disparities in health. In this invited commentary, the author proposes that increased attention to the scale at which disparities are measured, the interpretations attached to the various measures used, and the way in which these measures are assembled on the basis of conceptual models would benefit the field. Specifically, attention to these three areas would increase the capacity to communicate research findings to the public and policy-making consumers of disparity-related research.
监测健康方面的社会差异并非一项简单的工作。界定何为差异颇具挑战性,人们已提出多种衡量方法来追踪差异随时间的变化。在本期中,哈珀等人(《美国流行病学杂志》2008年;167:889 - 899)提出了七种健康差异衡量方法,并将其应用于美国肺癌发病率(1992 - 2004年)。他们发现,不同的汇总衡量方法对“差异是增加了还是减少了?”这一问题给出了不同答案。他们的研究结果让我们不确定如何使用和解读这些衡量方法来追踪健康方面社会差异的变化。在这篇特邀评论中,作者提议,更多地关注差异衡量的尺度、对所使用的各种衡量方法的解读,以及基于概念模型组合这些衡量方法的方式,将对该领域有益。具体而言,关注这三个方面将提高向公众和与差异相关研究的政策制定者传达研究结果的能力。