Kirst Maritt, Shankardass Ketan, Singhal Sonica, Lofters Aisha, Muntaner Carles, Quiñonez Carlos
Department of Psychology, Wilfrid Laurier University, 75 University Ave. West, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3C5, Canada.
Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
BMC Public Health. 2017 Jan 5;17(1):7. doi: 10.1186/s12889-016-3932-x.
As public opinion is an important part of the health equity policy agenda, it is important to assess public opinion around potential policy interventions to address health inequities. We report on public opinion in Ontario about health equity interventions that address the social determinants of health. We also examine Ontarians' support and predictors for targeted health equity interventions versus universal interventions.
We surveyed 2,006 adult Ontarians through a telephone survey using random digit dialing. Descriptive statistics assessed Ontarians' support for various health equity solutions, and a multinomial logistic regression model was built to examine predictors of this support across specific targeted and broader health equity interventions focused on nutrition, welfare, and housing.
There appears to be mixed opinions among Ontarians regarding the importance of addressing health inequities and related solutions. Nevertheless, Ontarians were willing to support a wide range of interventions to address health inequities. The three most supported interventions were more subsidized nutritious food for children (89%), encouraging more volunteers in the community (89%), and more healthcare treatment programs (85%). Respondents who attributed health inequities to the plight of the poor were generally more likely to support both targeted and broader health equity interventions, than neither type. Political affiliation was a strong predictor of support with expected patterns, with left-leaning voters more likely to support both targeted and broader health equity interventions, and right-leaning voters less likely to support both types of interventions.
Findings indicate that the Ontario public is more supportive of targeted health equity interventions, but that attributions of inequities and political affiliation are important predictors of support. The Ontario public may be accepting of messaging around health inequities and the social determinants of health depending on how the message is framed (e.g., plight of the poor vs. privilege of the rich). These findings may be instructive for advocates looking to raise awareness of health inequities.
由于公众舆论是健康公平政策议程的重要组成部分，评估围绕解决健康不平等问题的潜在政策干预措施的公众舆论非常重要。我们报告了安大略省关于解决健康不平等问题的公众舆论，这些问题涉及健康的社会决定因素。我们还研究了安大略人对有针对性的健康公平干预措施与普遍干预措施的支持情况及预测因素。
我们通过随机数字拨号电话调查对2006名安大略省成年人进行了调查。描述性统计评估了安大略人对各种健康公平解决方案的支持情况，并建立了多项逻辑回归模型，以研究在针对营养、福利和住房的特定有针对性的和更广泛的健康公平干预措施中，这种支持的预测因素。
安大略人对解决健康不平等问题及其相关解决方案的重要性似乎存在不同意见。尽管如此，安大略人愿意支持广泛的干预措施来解决健康不平等问题。最受支持的三项干预措施是为儿童提供更多补贴的营养食品（89%）、鼓励社区中有更多志愿者（89%）以及更多的医疗治疗项目（85%）。将健康不平等归因于穷人困境的受访者通常比不支持任何一种类型的受访者更有可能支持有针对性的和更广泛的健康公平干预措施。政治派别是支持情况的一个强有力的预测因素，呈现出预期的模式，即倾向于左派的选民更有可能支持有针对性的和更广泛的健康公平干预措施，而倾向于右派的选民不太可能支持这两种类型的干预措施。
研究结果表明，安大略省公众更支持有针对性的健康公平干预措施，但不平等的归因和政治派别是支持的重要预测因素。安大略省公众可能会根据信息的框架方式（例如，穷人的困境与富人的特权）接受围绕健康不平等和健康的社会决定因素的信息。这些发现可能对希望提高对健康不平等认识的倡导者具有指导意义。
