Shimonovich Michal, Campbell Mhairi, Thomson Rachel M, Broadbent Philip, Wells Valerie, Kopasker Daniel, McCARTNEY Gerry, Thomson Hilary, Pearce Anna, Katikireddi S Vittal
MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, School of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow.
School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Glasgow.
Milbank Q. 2024 Mar;102(1):141-182. doi: 10.1111/1468-0009.12689. Epub 2024 Jan 31.
Policy Points Income is thought to impact a broad range of health outcomes. However, whether income inequality (how unequal the distribution of income is in a population) has an additional impact on health is extensively debated. Studies that use multilevel data, which have recently increased in popularity, are necessary to separate the contextual effects of income inequality on health from the effects of individual income on health. Our systematic review found only small associations between income inequality and poor self-rated health and all-cause mortality. The available evidence does not suggest causality, although it remains methodologically flawed and limited, with very few studies using natural experimental approaches or examining income inequality at the national level.
Whether income inequality has a direct effect on health or is only associated because of the effect of individual income has long been debated. We aimed to understand the association between income inequality and self-rated health (SRH) and all-cause mortality (mortality) and assess if these relationships are likely to be causal.
We searched Medline, ISI Web of Science, Embase, and EconLit (PROSPERO: CRD42021252791) for studies considering income inequality and SRH or mortality using multilevel data and adjusting for individual-level socioeconomic position. We calculated pooled odds ratios (ORs) for poor SRH and relative risk ratios (RRs) for mortality from random-effects meta-analyses. We critically appraised included studies using the Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies - of Interventions tool. We assessed certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework and causality using Bradford Hill (BH) viewpoints.
The primary meta-analyses included 2,916,576 participants in 38 cross-sectional studies assessing SRH and 10,727,470 participants in 14 cohort studies of mortality. Per 0.05-unit increase in the Gini coefficient, a measure of income inequality, the ORs and RRs (95% confidence intervals) for SRH and mortality were 1.06 (1.03-1.08) and 1.02 (1.00-1.04), respectively. A total of 63.2% of SRH and 50.0% of mortality studies were at serious risk of bias (RoB), resulting in very low and low certainty ratings, respectively. For SRH and mortality, we did not identify relevant evidence to assess the specificity or, for SRH only, the experiment BH viewpoints; evidence for strength of association and dose-response gradient was inconclusive because of the high RoB; we found evidence in support of temporality and plausibility.
Increased income inequality is only marginally associated with SRH and mortality, but the current evidence base is too methodologically limited to support a causal relationship. To address the gaps we identified, future research should focus on income inequality measured at the national level and addressing confounding with natural experiment approaches.
政策要点 人们认为收入会影响广泛的健康结果。然而,收入不平等(即人群中收入分配的不平等程度)是否会对健康产生额外影响,这一问题存在广泛争议。使用多层数据的研究(近年来此类研究越来越受欢迎)对于区分收入不平等对健康的背景影响和个人收入对健康的影响是必要的。我们的系统评价发现,收入不平等与自评健康状况不佳和全因死亡率之间仅有微弱关联。现有证据并未表明存在因果关系,尽管其在方法上仍存在缺陷且有限,很少有研究采用自然实验方法或在国家层面研究收入不平等。
收入不平等是直接影响健康,还是仅仅因为个人收入的影响而与之相关,这一问题长期以来一直存在争议。我们旨在了解收入不平等与自评健康状况(SRH)和全因死亡率之间的关联,并评估这些关系是否可能存在因果关系。
我们在Medline、ISI科学网、Embase和EconLit数据库(PROSPERO:CRD42021252791)中检索了使用多层数据并对个体层面社会经济地位进行调整的、考虑收入不平等与SRH或死亡率的研究。我们通过随机效应荟萃分析计算了自评健康状况不佳的合并比值比(OR)和死亡率的相对风险比(RR)。我们使用非随机干预研究中的偏倚风险工具对纳入研究进行严格评估。我们使用推荐分级评估、制定和评价框架评估证据的确定性,并使用布拉德福德·希尔(BH)观点评估因果关系。
主要荟萃分析纳入了38项评估SRH的横断面研究中的2916576名参与者,以及14项死亡率队列研究中的10727470名参与者。作为收入不平等衡量指标的基尼系数每增加0.05个单位,SRH和死亡率的OR和RR(95%置信区间)分别为1.06(1.03 - 1.08)和1.02(1.00 - 1.04)。共有63.2%的SRH研究和50.0%的死亡率研究存在严重偏倚风险(RoB),分别导致极低和低确定性评级。对于SRH和死亡率,我们未找到相关证据来评估特异性,对于SRH研究仅评估实验性BH观点;由于高RoB,关联强度和剂量反应梯度的证据尚无定论;我们发现了支持时间顺序和合理性的证据。
收入不平等加剧仅与SRH和死亡率存在微弱关联,但目前的证据基础在方法上过于有限,无法支持因果关系。为弥补我们发现的差距,未来研究应关注国家层面衡量的收入不平等,并采用自然实验方法解决混杂问题。