Centre for Health Equity Studies, Stockholm University/Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
BMC Public Health. 2013 Dec 27;13:1234. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-1234.
The past decade has witnessed a growing body of research on welfare state characteristics and health inequalities but the picture is, despite this, inconsistent. We aim to review this research by focusing on theoretical and methodological differences between studies that at least in part may lead to these mixed findings.
Three reviews and relevant bibliographies were manually explored in order to find studies for the review. Related articles were searched for in PubMed, Web of Science and Google Scholar. Database searches were done in PubMed and Web of Science. The search period was restricted to 2005-01-01 to 2013-02-28. Fifty-four studies met the inclusion criteria.
Three main approaches to comparative welfare state research are identified; the Regime approach, the Institutional approach, and the Expenditure approach. The Regime approach is the most common and regardless of the empirical regime theory employed and the amendments made to these, results are diverse and contradictory. When stratifying studies according to other features, not much added clarity is achieved. The Institutional approach shows more consistent results; generous policies and benefits seem to be associated with health in a positive way for all people in a population, not only those who are directly affected or targeted. The Expenditure approach finds that social and health spending is associated with increased levels of health and smaller health inequalities in one way or another but the studies are few in numbers making it somewhat difficult to get coherent results.
Based on earlier reviews and our results we suggest that future research should focus less on welfare regimes and health inequalities and more on a multitude of different types of studies, including larger analyses of social spending and social rights in various policy areas and how these are linked to health in different social strata. But, we also need more detailed evaluation of specific programmes or interventions, as well as more qualitative analyses of the experiences of different types of policies among the people and families that need to draw on the collective resources.
过去十年见证了福利国家特征和健康不平等研究的不断发展,但即便如此,情况仍不一致。我们旨在通过关注研究之间的理论和方法差异来回顾这一研究,这些差异至少部分导致了这些混杂的发现。
通过手工探索三篇综述和相关文献目录,以找到该综述的研究。在 PubMed、Web of Science 和 Google Scholar 中搜索相关文章。在 PubMed 和 Web of Science 中进行数据库搜索。搜索期限制在 2005-01-01 至 2013-02-28。有 54 项研究符合纳入标准。
确定了三种主要的比较福利国家研究方法;制度方法、支出方法。制度方法是最常见的,无论采用何种实证制度理论以及对这些理论的修正,结果都是多样化和矛盾的。当根据其他特征对研究进行分层时,并没有增加多少清晰度。制度方法显示出更一致的结果;慷慨的政策和福利似乎以积极的方式与所有人的健康相关,而不仅仅是那些直接受到影响或针对的人。支出方法发现,社会和健康支出以某种方式与更高水平的健康和更小的健康不平等相关,但研究数量较少,使得结果有些不一致。
基于早期的综述和我们的结果,我们建议未来的研究应减少对福利制度和健康不平等的关注,而更多地关注多种不同类型的研究,包括对不同政策领域的社会支出和社会权利的更大分析,以及这些因素如何在不同社会阶层与健康相关联。但是,我们还需要更详细地评估具体的方案或干预措施,以及对不同类型的政策在需要利用集体资源的人群和家庭中的经验进行更深入的定性分析。