Asada Yukiko, Hurley Jeremiah, Norheim Ole Frithjof, Johri Mira
Int J Equity Health. 2014 Nov 1;13:98. doi: 10.1186/s12939-014-0098-y.
Measurement of health inequities is fundamental to all health equity initiatives. It is complex because it requires considerations of ethics, methods, and policy. Drawing upon the recent developments in related specialized fields, in this paper we incorporate alternative definitions of health inequity explicitly and transparently in its measurement. We propose a three-stage approach to measuring health inequities that assembles univariate health inequality, univariate health inequity, and bivariate health inequities in a systematic and comparative manner.
We illustrate the application of the three-stage approach using the Joint Canada/United States Survey of Health, measuring health by the Health Utilities Index (HUI). Univariate health inequality is the distribution of the observed HUI across individuals. Univariate health inequity is the distribution of unfair HUI--components of HUI associated with ethically unacceptable factors--across individuals. To estimate the unfair HUI, we apply two popular definitions of inequity: "equal opportunity for health" (health outcomes due to factors beyond individual control are unfair), and "policy amenability" (health outcomes due to factors amenable to policy interventions are unfair). We quantify univariate health inequality and inequity using the Gini coefficient. We assess bivariate inequities using a regression-based decomposition method.
Our analysis reveals that, empirically, different definitions of health inequity do not yield statistically significant differences in the estimated amount of univariate inequity. This derives from the relatively small explanatory power common in regression models describing variations in health. As is typical, our model explains about 20% of the variation in the observed HUI. With regard to bivariate inequities, income and health care show strong associations with the unfair HUI.
The measurement of health inequities is an excitingly multidisciplinary endeavour. Its development requires interdisciplinary integration of advances from relevant disciplines. The proposed three-stage approach is one such effort and stimulates cross-disciplinary dialogues, specifically, about conceptual and empirical significance of definitions of health inequities.
健康不平等的衡量是所有健康公平倡议的基础。它很复杂,因为需要考虑伦理、方法和政策。借鉴相关专业领域的最新发展,在本文中,我们在健康不平等的衡量中明确且透明地纳入了其替代定义。我们提出了一种衡量健康不平等的三阶段方法,该方法以系统和比较的方式整合单变量健康不平等、单变量健康不公平以及双变量健康不公平。
我们使用加拿大/美国健康联合调查来说明三阶段方法的应用,通过健康效用指数(HUI)来衡量健康状况。单变量健康不平等是观察到的HUI在个体间的分布。单变量健康不公平是不公平的HUI(与伦理上不可接受的因素相关的HUI组成部分)在个体间的分布。为了估计不公平的HUI,我们应用两种流行的不公平定义:“健康的平等机会”(由于个体无法控制的因素导致的健康结果是不公平的)和“政策可及性”(由于可通过政策干预的因素导致的健康结果是不公平的)。我们使用基尼系数来量化单变量健康不平等和不公平。我们使用基于回归的分解方法评估双变量不公平。
我们的分析表明,从经验上看,不同的健康不公平定义在估计的单变量不公平量上没有产生统计学上的显著差异。这源于描述健康变化的回归模型中普遍存在的相对较小的解释力。通常,我们的模型解释了观察到的HUI中约20%的变化。关于双变量不公平,收入和医疗保健与不公平的HUI显示出强烈的关联。
健康不平等的衡量是一项令人兴奋的多学科努力。其发展需要相关学科进展的跨学科整合。所提出的三阶段方法就是这样一种努力,并激发了跨学科对话,特别是关于健康不公平定义的概念和实证意义的对话。