Perspectives of Health Inequalities
Perspectives of Health Inequalities
Perspectives of Health Inequalities
Patrick West
INTRODUCTION
Artefact explanation
Natural/social selection
10
Cultural/behavioural explanation
11
12
15
CONCLUSION
18
BIBLIOGRAPHY
19
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank Sally Macintyre and Helen Sweeting for comments on this
paper, and Ossi Rahkonen and Eero Lahelma for the opportunity of participating in the
Helsinki symposium and subsequent publication. He is financially supported by the
Medical Research Council of Great Britain
INTRODUCTION
At the time of writing, there is renewed interest in health inequalities in several countries
in Europe and elsewhere which extends beyond the academic community to the policy
arena. In Britain, the recently elected Labour Government has commissioned an
independent inquiry into health inequalities in England and Wales under the
chairmanship of Sir Donald Acheson, the former Chief Medical Officer, with the specific
remit to review the evidence and produce recommendations. In Germany, senior
academics are preparing a briefing paper to persuade their Government to do the same.
In Sweden, meetings are being held this Autumn with the aim of getting the issue onto
the political agenda, and similar moves are being made elsewhere. Even in countries as
dissimilar as the U.S.A. and Hungary, there is a growing concern about health
inequalities as evidence accumulates about the existence - and persistence - of
differences in health between people in different social classes or income levels in
advanced societies, many of them with well developed welfare states.
This flurry of activity suggests a degree of confidence among academics and policy
makers alike that we now not only have the necessary evidence about the existence of
health inequalities but that we understand their causes and are therefore in a position to
offer appropriate remedies. While applauding this at a general level, I want to introduce
a note of caution by arguing that we are still quite a long way from a comprehensive
understanding of the causes of health inequalities and that because of this there is a
danger we will offer too simple a solution to a complex problem. The health inequalities
debate, as it has become known, is not a neutral one. It inflames passions and divides
people of different political persuasion. The debate has been characterised by a sharp
polarisation of views about a range of issues such as the appropriateness of particular
ways of measuring health, the degree to which health inequalities are widening over
time, and particularly the explanations for health inequalities. Here, a sharp polarity has
been apparent between those who see a role for individual responsibility (via health
behaviours like smoking, for example) and those who dont; between those who see a
role for health related mobility and those who dont; and more recently between those
advocating a role for psychosocial mechanisms and those who dont. In some part,
perhaps in very large part, this polarisation of views is not a reflection of a balanced
assessment of the evidence but of a tendency to seek a single all-embracing explanation
of health inequalities and downplay the significance of other possibilities. It is what Sally
Macintyre, in a recent review (1997), has characterised as a hard rather than soft
version of the explanation of health inequalities.
In this paper, I want to look at these issues in more detail. In reviewing several
perspectives on health inequalities, including the recent and potentially very influential
thesis of Richard Wilkinson (1996), I will argue that there remains a tendency in the
health inequalities debate to go for the big explanations rather than concentrating on all
the evidence and seeing each bit as part of a very complex jigsaw. In this respect, what
has become known as the lifecourse perspective on health inequalities (Lundberg,
1993; Wadsworth, 1997, Power et al., 1997) seems to offer a way forward in that it forces
investigators to consider each stage of the lifecourse, from the embryo through to very
old age, as containing particular influences on health and biography which are
synergistically interrelated. In this model, health inequalities are the product of an
accumulation of (dis)advantages over the lifecourse, some of which may be outside the
individuals control, some not; some of which may derive from the social class an
individual is born into, some from influences related to social mobility; some of which
may take the form of physical effects of the environment, some of which may involve a
Page 3 - Occasional Paper September 1998
psychosocial mechanism. Not only does this perspective direct the investigator to stick
very closely to the evidence indeed, but it also warns against the advocacy of any one
all-embracing solution to the problem and suggests instead a multifaceted approach.
all the evidence led to the now famous conclusion that health inequalities were a
pervasive feature of the lifecourse.
Since the publication of the Black Report, much has been achieved by the burgeoning
research effort into the study of health inequalities. Until relatively recently, the
predominant focus has been descriptive rather than explanatory, the main findings of
which can be summarised as follows.
First, there is now evidence that health inequalities are a feature of all developed
societies. At the time of the Black Report, very little information existed on this issue and
it was widely believed that in some societies such as Sweden class differences in health
simply did not exist. We now know that this is not true both for Sweden and other
countries in western Europe (Illsley & Svensson, 1986), eastern Europe (Vagero &
Illsley, 1992), North America (Kunst et al.,1992) and Australasia (Pearce et al., 1993). In
Finland, this was first demonstrated by Valkonen et al. (1993). Most of the evidence on
this issue refers to mortality but in some countries, including Finland, similar measures of
morbidity as used in the British GHS have revealed evidence of health inequalities
(Lahelma et al., 1994).
Second, most but not all the evidence suggests that health inequalities have increased
over time in spite of the fact that almost everywhere (Hungary is a notable exception),
infant mortality and premature mortality have declined. In Britain, mortality differentials
between men in social class I and V widened between 1971 and 1981 (Davey Smith et
al., 1990), and continued to widen up to 1991 (Illsley & Baker, 1997). Very recent
evidence, based on a comparison of mortality rates in different geographical areas in
Britain also suggests that health inequalities have widened (Dorling et al., 1997). In
Finland, class differences in mortality among middle-aged and elderly men increased
between 1971 and 1981 (Valkonen et al., 1993). The conclusion that class differences in
health are widening has, however, been recently criticised by Illsley and Baker (1997)
who argue that it is only sustainable in comparisons between the top and the very bottom
of the social scale, the latter comprising an increasingly small proportion of the
population, the underclass.
Third, at the time of the Black Report very little evidence about variations in mortality (or
morbidity) by dimensions of class other than that based on occupation was available. In
the light of the changing nature of the class structure in contemporary society, and the
inadequacy of an occupational based classification scheme to classify women, the
retired and other groups excluded from the labour market, this has been an important
source of criticism about the magnitude (and even existence) of health inequalities.
There is now evidence from several countries that health differentials are apparent with
respect to alternative measures of social class such as housing tenure, car ownership,
educational level, income (Goldblatt, 1990) and area of deprivation (McLoone & Boddy,
1994). Of particular interest in this connection is income since the finding that health and
wealth are related is open to quite different interpretations.
Fourth, one of the most striking features of the observed relationship between social
class (and income) and health is that the relationship is stepwise or linear; that is, that
increases or decreases in health occur at every point in the class structure or income
level. Thus, the difference in mortality rates between classes at the top of the social
scale (e.g. I and II) is similar in magnitude to the difference between classes at the
bottom of the social scale (e.g. IV and V). This pattern has actually been evident for a
very long time, as Macintyre (1997) has noted, but the significance of the hierarchical
relationship has only relatively recently been seen as interesting, most notably in the
U.S. with the MRFIT study (Davey Smith et al., 1996) and in the U.K. with the Whitehall I
and II studies of civil servants (Rose & Marmot, 1981: Marmot et al., 1997). The pattern
is surprising given that most assumptions about the relationship between class or income
and health would commonsensically suggest a change in shape beyond a certain point
or threshold at which basic needs were met. That this does not happen poses an
interesting problem for the explanation of health inequalities.
Fifth, the Black Report, and many commentators since (Whitehead, 1987), assumed that
health inequalities were an invariant feature of the lifecourse. On the basis of the
evidence available to them, this was in fact a reasonable assumption. Further work, with
which I have been particularly associated, has thrown doubt on the validity of that
assumption as it pertains to the situation of youth, a stage in the lifecourse between
childhood and adulthood I have characterised as being one of relative equality rather
than inequality (West, 1988, 1997). This pattern, which has also been found in other
countries, including Finland (Rahkonen & Lahelma, 1992), suggests that in youth other
influences associated with the school, the peer group and youth culture may cut across
the influence of social class to promote equalisation, at least in respect of some
measures of health (West, 1997). That this is no more than a temporary process is
indicated by the way health inequalities (re)emerge in early adulthood. This occurs both
in respect of mortality and morbidity as indicated in our own West of Scotland Twenty-07
study (Macintyre et al., 1989) on a wide range of health measures, including the GHS
measure of longstanding illness (West et al.,1990). This pattern, which has been
referred to by Vagero (1991) as an important anomaly, also poses some interesting
problems of interpretation - how does a pattern of relative equality get translated into one
of health inequalities in such a relatively short time?
Sixth, while the Black Report depended heavily on mortality statistics as evidence of
health inequalities, increasingly research on the issue has used indicators of morbidity,
most usually of the type included in the British GHS but also extending to measures of
general physical health, mental health, symptoms and physical measures such as height,
weight, blood pressure and respiratory function. As a general rule, class gradients in
relation to morbidity are not as steep as are observed for mortality (Macintyre, 1997).
They also vary between measures, being more marked for measures of health status
such as chronic illness than for health state such as physical symptoms. In the Twenty07 study, in two adult cohorts aged 35 and 55 respectively, class gradients were found
for longstanding, and limiting longstanding, illness, self-rated general health, mental
health, height and weight, and respiratory function, but not blood pressure (Ford et al.,
1994). Other studies have found blood pressure to be class-related, but in general the
gradient is not very steep (Cox et al., 1987). In the British 1958 birth cohort (NCDS),
class patterning of health in young adulthood (age 23) varied considerably between
measures, with some (e.g. malaise) exhibiting a health inequalities pattern, others (e.g.
limiting longstanding illness) showing no relationship, and others (e.g. allergies) a
reverse class gradient (Power et al., 1991). Similar findings have been reported from the
later sweep of that study (age 33) with, in addition and against expectations, very little
evidence that class gradients had widened over the ten years since the earlier sweep
(Power et al., 1997). It is a salutory reminder to researchers in the health inequalites
field that on some health measures only a small proportion of the variance is explained
by social class or another measure like income (Der et al., 1997).
In the years since the Black Report, we have learned a great deal about the social
patterning of health, much of which is now broadly agreed though there remain some
areas of controversy and others which pose problems of interpretation. There is broad
consensus that health inequalities are a feature of all developed societies, that they have
probably increased over time, that they are observable with a range of measures of
social class, and that the observed relationship between class and health conforms to a
linear rather than threshold model. There is increasing recognition that the apparently
anomalous situation in youth is a real one though some dispute this, principally on
methodological grounds (Blane et al., 1994). This finding, that health inequalities are not
an invariant feature of the lifecourse, together with the finding that health inequalities are
not invariably found with every health measure, is important and poses problems for a
single all-embracing explanation of health inequalities. I shall return to these issues
later.
Artefact explanation
The artefact explanation of health inequalities rests on the idea that the relationship
between class and health is artificial rather than real. It is a measurement phenomenon
which arises either through the (inadequate) measurement of social class and/or health,
or in the measurement of the relationship between the two. An early problem of the latter
kind was referred to in Britain as the numerator/denominator bias, a possibility which
arose in the process of matching occupational data available from death certificates (the
numerator) with population data about social class derived from the census (the
denominator), the implication being that working class rates might be artificially elevated
or middle class rates reduced (it could of course have worked the other way round to
conceal the real magnitude of class differentials). With the availability of linked
(individual data on class and mortality) datasets in Sweden, Finland and elsewhere, and
the advent of the Longitudinal Study (LS) in Britain (Goldblatt, 1990), the
numerator/denominator bias has been shown to be false. More complex problems of
measurement of both social class and health remain. In respect of the former, while
studies using alternative measures of class such as housing tenure or income
demonstrate that at any one time health inequalities are not simply the product of an
occupational based classification system, there are problems of comparison over time
occasioned by the changing nature of the class system (Illsley, 1997). With respect to
health, there are also potential problems of reporting bias in relation to measures of
morbidity, one of the reasons why some investigators (e.g. Wilkinson, 1996) prefer to use
mortality. The usual assumption is that because of the greater volume of ill-health in the
working classes, what is defined as illness is more severe than among the middle
classes, a difference which results in an underestimation of the true extent of health
inequalities (Blane et al., 1994). While important, this is only one view about how illness
is identified (and reported), another suggesting that through middle class stoicism quite
the reverse could occur (Williams, 1990). More generally, the question of the
appropriateness of health measures has been raised as a possible explanation for the
finding of a pattern of relative equality in youth, an issue which certainly merits further
investigation (West, 1997).
There is no doubt that there remain several problems in relation to the measurement of
health inequalities. The cumulative evidence, however, is overwhelming that health
inequalities are real rather than artefactual. This is one explanation advanced by Black
which by almost universal agreement can be rejected.
Natural/social selection
Any assessment of the role of selection in relation to health inequalities has to begin with
a distinction between natural and social selection which the Black Report coupled
together, thereby obscuring a fundamental difference in the processes involved and
inadvertently creating the conditions for polarised views thereafter. For the authors, this
explanation of health inequalities involved the idea that health was a cause of social
class position rather than a consequence, and that fitter individuals (both in relation to
health and other characteristics) are selected into higher classes while the weakest and
most frail drift down the social scale to occupy the lowest position and reap the most
meagre rewards (op. cit., 105). In this view, both health and class position are the
outcome of innate characteristics or genetic predispositions, and it is therefore a
profoundly Social Darwinist view which is advanced wherein processes of social
selection play no part other than presumably reflecting natural selection. With the
occasional exception (Himsworth, 1987), there is almost nobody who would subscribe to
this view but within the inequalities debate there has been an unfortunate tendency to
assume that those who see a role for social selection (e.g. Illsley, 1986) are closet
natural selectionists (Wilkinson, 1986).
Reconceptualised within a sociological perspective (West, 1991), the idea of health
selection proceeds from the unremarkable postulate that health - and health related
characteristics - can have consequences for social life, including success or failure in the
labour market and class structure. In this view, for profoundly social reasons, those
people in better health are more likely to experience upward social mobility while those in
worse health are more likely to experience downward mobility, the combined effect of
which is to contribute to a picture of health inequalities. It is postulated that this can
happen between generations (inter-generational mobility), as when a disabled young
person for example moves down the social scale relative to his/her class of origin, or
within a generation (intra-generational mobility) as when a chronically sick adult changes
from a higher to lower status occupation. There are several processes by which this
might occur, including family characteristics which impact both on health and education,
thereby affecting subsequent inter-generational mobility chances (Vagero & Illsley,
1995), and discrimination by employers against those with health or health related
problems (West, 1991). Finally, a distinction exists between what has been called direct
health selection in which health itself (consciously or unconsciously) is related to social
mobility, and indirect health selection in which some other attribute marking health
potential is similarly involved with the mobility process (Wilkinson, 1987; West, 1991).
An example of the latter is height, which is associated both with health and social
mobility (Macintyre & West, 1991), though the problems of sorting out the causal process
are considerable.
A good deal of work has been undertaken to examine the health selection hypothesis,
most usually to rule it out as an explanation of health inequalities. Most, but not all,
studies find some evidence of direct health selection. In the 1946 British birth cohort,
children with serious illness were more likely than those without to be downwardly mobile
(Wadsworth, 1987). In the 1958 cohort, that was true among those with malaise at age
Page 10 - Occasional Paper September 1998
16, much less so among those with poor general health (Power et al., 1991). In the
Swedish Project Metropolitan study, much greater evidence of selection was found in
relation to mental health (Timms, 1995). By contrast, in a recent analysis of the British
GHS, almost no evidence of downward mobility was found for those with poor self-rated
health or limiting longstanding illness (Rahkonen et al., 1997a). The question which has
assumed more importance in recent years, however, is not whether health related
mobility occurs but how important it is as an explanation of health inequalities. The
general conclusion is that it plays a small but significant role (Blane et al., 1993), though
some recent commentators, perhaps rather unwisely since the analysis rests on one
health measure only, describe its influence as negligible (Power et al., 1996).
There has in addition been some interest in the process referred to as indirect health
selection which I earlier indicated might be much more significant than direct health
selection (West, 1991). Its potential significance derives from the way particular
characteristics of individuals which may mark underlying health status might impact both
on social mobility and on subsequent class inequalities in health. Among several
characteristics considered, height has received the most attention and there is abundant
evidence from several studies that height is related to mobility, with shorter people being
more likely to be downwardly mobile, taller people more likely to be upwardly mobile
(Macintyre, 1988). The problem of its relationship to health inequalities, however, is
knowing how height translates into health since it could simply be that stature
predisposes to subsequent health risk rather than containing differential health risk.
Other attributes which have received some attention are health behaviours such as
smoking, and more generally young peoples lifestyles, which are also linked in a regular
way to social mobility (Glendinning et al., 1995) but similar problems of interpretation are
encountered here. At the present time, the jury is out on the issue of indirect health
selection, and it may well be that the main problem is one of lack of conceptual clarity.
Cultural/behavioural explanation
In contrast to health selection, the third explanation identified in the Black Report views
class as antecedent to health with cultural/behavioural factors as the mechanism by
which health inequalities are produced. This is therefore one type of social causation
explanation, but in rather the same way that the linking of natural and social selection
caused misunderstanding, the coupling together of behavioural and cultural explanations
has, in my view, obscured the potential importance of culture as an influence on health
inequalities (Sweeting & West, 1995). For the authors of the Black Report, although they
allude to the role of ideas and values, the definition of culture is reduced to a set of
specific behaviours which have consequences for health. These behaviours, which are
well known and typically comprise smoking, drinking, diet and exercise (Blaxter, 1990),
were regarded as cultural because of the common understanding that they are, or
should be, within the control of individuals. In this respect, they were reflecting the
message of the previous British Labour administrations white paper Prevention:
Everybodys Business (1976), a message which continues to dominate health education
and health promotion in Britain and elsewhere.
There is no disputing the aetiological significance of behaviours like smoking or diet for
subsequent morbidity and mortality, nor that these behaviours are socially patterned. In
Britain, for example, smoking among adults continues to be much more prevalent among
working class compared with middle class people, in some measure because of the
greater capacity of the latter to quit the habit (Amos & Hillhouse, 1993). Successive
studies of diet, too, have revealed a pattern of poorer nutrition among both children and
adults from lower social class backgrounds (RUHBC, 1997). The important question,
however, concerns the extent to which such behaviours constitute a complete
Page 11 - Occasional Paper September 1998
relationship between income or car ownership and health might actually work. Indeed, it
sometimes seems that the finding of a minor role for selection or health behaviours is
judged an adequate demonstration of a major role for materialist factors. There are,
however, four main areas which have been the subject of some research and which refer
to the intrauterine environment, physical features of the external environment,
psychosocial influences, and opportunity structures respectively.
The first of these was not originally formulated within a health inequalities perspective at
all, but has since been incorporated as one type of materialist explanation, sometimes to
the exclusion of all others. The research concerned has been developed by Barker and
colleagues (1992) who, in an ingenious series of studies using both aggregate and
individual level data, have revealed relationships between infant health, notably
birthweight, and much later morbidity and mortality in adult life. The principal finding
concerns the link between low birthweight and high blood pressure in adulthood which in
turn leads to increased CHD and stroke mortality. The mechanism by which this is held
to occur is an essentially biological one involving a relationship between intrauterine
growth and the programming of body functions like blood pressure such that when
growth is impaired the body sets a higher level of blood pressure. Since birthweight is
class related, it follows that such a process could have consequences for the subsequent
development of health inequalities, and since foetal growth is itself related to maternal
nutrition, the underlying cause is seen to be poor maternal nutrition associated with
poverty. The thesis has attracted a good deal of critical attention, particularly in respect
of the possibility that the relationship between birthweight and later health is spurious,
though in a recent Swedish study which controlled for a number of factors including
health behaviours in adulthood an independent effect of birthweight on blood pressure
was found (Koupilova et al., 1997). Despite the sometimes very exaggerated claims to
explain health inequalities, the relationship between birthweight and later blood pressure
is in fact quite small.
The second area which has received attention refers to a rather longer tradition of
research focusing on a range of physical hazards in the environment including pollution,
work settings and housing conditions. In general, though the effects of environmental
pollution and the physical hazards associated with work are acknowledged as potential
risks to health, their effect on health inequalities is not nowadays regarded as particularly
important. More importance has been given to housing conditions. In one study (Martin
et al., 1987), which is often referred to, a relationship between damp housing and
respiratory problems in children, though not adults, was found. The finding in respect of
children has not, however, been consistently replicated (Strachan et al., 1995), and it
may be that here too the size of the effect has been exaggerated.
A third area which has assumed particular importance in recent years refers to
psychosocial processes linking environmental stressors to physical and mental health.
Research into this issue has been heavily concentrated on the work situation, a common
finding being that workers in lower status occupations characterised by low levels of
control over work, a fast work pace, and low social support have higher CHD morbidity
and mortality (Karasek et al., 1988; Marmot et al., 1997). The plausibility of a
psychosocial mechanism underlying this relationship has been considerably increased
with the demonstration of changes in cortisone and fibrinogen levels in blood chemistry,
both of which are indicators of stress. In principle, the underlying processes presumed to
link stressors in the work situation to workers health might apply to other situations like
the domestic setting or even to society itself.
The fourth area of research takes an entirely different approach to those which in one
way or another are looking at the direct effects of the socio-economic environment on
health. Here the focus is on opportunity structures both for the promotion of good health
and for life chances more generally, both of which are differentially distributed in the
class or income structure. In respect of the former, attention is directed to the provision
of facilities and availability of goods and services in particular areas. Macintyre et al.
(1993), for example, have shown how people living in poorer areas have fewer
recreational and sports facilities than those living in better-off areas and that in addition
there is a price disincentive, particularly in the poorer area, to eat healthily (Sooman et
al., 1993). In respect of the latter, attention is directed to educational and labour market
opportunities which could involve several different kinds of effect via knowledge (e.g.
health education), social identity (e.g. self-esteem) or differential exposure to risk (e.g the
likelihood of unemployment). Because the relationship between social structure and
health in this model is essentially indirect, it focuses attention on the processes
connecting them as they unfold over time.
It is quite evident, even with such a sketchy outline, that there are several different ways
in which a materialist explanation of health could work. It is similarly apparent that these
are likely to differ between different environments such as the work or domestic situation,
and that they are likely to impact at different stages in the lifecourse, possibly also on
different dimensions of health. It is also the case that the opportunity model outlined
above in many respects overlaps with a broader cultural perspective on health
inequalities. This diversity of possible causes, and the blurring of the distinction between
material and cultural factors, is not what the authors of the Black Report had in mind
when advancing the idea of a materialist explanation. Although they acknowledged a
diversity of material influences, implicit in their understanding, and articulated more
starkly in the debate since that time, is the idea that each of these influences is caused
by a single underlying feature of society, the class structure itself or different income
levels. In more familiar terms, this means poverty, the eradication of which via a
redistribution of income is seen as the solution to the problem. The materialist
explanation, as a big explanation demanding big remedies, runs the risk of
oversimplifying the issues in a way that a lifecourse perspective does not.
absolute poverty.
Despite these criticisms, Wilkinsons achievement in locating
psychosocial mechanisms in the health inequalities debate is considerable.
One of the other criticisms of the thesis that psychosocial mechanisms are the key to
understanding variations in mortality between societies is that it implies that mortality
rates would respond rapidly to social change. There is indeed some evidence for this, as
the east European experience shows, but in general this is not the case, most countries
showing a steady improvement over time. This seems to suggest that, whatever factors
are responsible, they work over the lifetime of individuals. Indeed, if we pause to
consider the evidence, this is compatible with a range of research findings testifying to
the importance of early life factors for later morbidity and mortality. Furthermore, much
of what we know both about the shape of class patterning of health at different ages and
the factors which influence health at any one stage suggests that a profitable approach
to understanding health inequalities is to think in terms of an accumulation of risk over
the lifecourse.
It is observations like this that have given rise in recent years to what is becoming known
as the lifecourse perspective on health inequalities, a perspective held in particular by
those working with longitudinal datasets (Power et al., 1991; Wadsworth, 1997) or with
retrospective data about early economic and social conditions (Lundberg, 1993;
Rahkonen etal., 1997b). It is an approach which is not tied to any one of Blacks
explanations and would, theoretically at least, admit a role for health behaviours and
broader features of culture, material and psychosocial factors, and health selection.
Furthermore, rather than seeing these as competing factors, the emphasis in the
lifecourse perspective is to conceptualise influences as mutually reinforcing and linked
together in a chain of events and experiences which impact on health. The relationship
with social class is also seen in dynamic terms and would necessitate consideration of
health risks associated both with class of background and achieved adult class as well
as the relationship between them. Ultimately, the task is to identify particular types of
healthy and unhealthy careers or trajectories which offer the potential for intervention at
particular key points.
The lifecourse perspective is not yet sufficiently well developed to constitute a theory, but
it is possible to direct attention to a range of particularly important influences occurring at
particular stages. The first of these, following Barkers work, refers to the earliest period
of life and would focus as much on the consequences of low birthweight (e.g.
subsequent infant feeding practices) as on its causes. In respect of early childhood, the
evidence strongly suggests that the physical effects of the domestic environment (e.g.
damp housing) are of particular importance. In later childhood, the relationship between
values about health and education, as they constitute part of the socialisation of the
child, might be particularly important. A related issue in childhood and adolescence is
the way illness impacts on educational achievement. The adolescent period is also of
potentially great importance as it is at this time that health behaviours such as smoking
are developed. The research evidence bearing on this issue suggests that, though this
period may be characterised by relative equality in health, the consequences of poor
educational achievement and deviant lifestyles for subsequent health inequalities are
profound (Power et al., 1991). One such consequence in later youth is the experience of
unemployment which not only impacts on health but also on the likelihood of future
unemployment in adulthood (Montgomery, 1996). In adulthood, and perhaps particularly
among adult workers, the possibility of psychosocial effects from particular work
environments is encountered. Finally, as we proceed towards retirement and beyond, a
range of factors associated with changes in roles and social support become more and
more important. Each of these factors constitutes an influence on health in its own right,
but the particular strength of the lifecourse perspective resides in the way they may be
dynamically interrelated over time. It also suggests that it is extremely unlikely that
health inequalities are the product of a single underlying mechanism but rather that
several different mechanisms (or pathways) are implicated for different dimensions of
health (Power et al., 1997).
The lifecourse perspective has several advantages over other perspectives on health
inequalities, not least because it admits influences which in Blacks terms belong to
different and potentially competing domains. It also seems to me to be much more likely
to be solidly evidence-based than the bigger all-inclusive explanations if for no other
reason than it demands attention to detailed social processes. Even so, it is unlikely to
be the final word on the issue for just as there is evidence which doesnt fit the big
explanations, so there are findings which dont fit the lifecourse perspective. One of
these is that, on the basis of two longitudinal studies (the Twenty-07 study and the
NCDS), class gradients do not appear to widen with age. Any explanation of health
inequalities which rests on the notion of an accumulation of risk over time would not
expect this and it is a puzzle as to why it doesnt occur.
CONCLUSION
There is no doubt that health inequalities are a persistent feature of our societies, an
inequity which demands that something be done. Given the passion the issue arouses, it
is not surprising therefore that the debate has been characterised, and continues to be
characterised, by the advocacy of simple, all or nothing, solutions. The Black Report,
despite its immense contribution in putting the issue on the scientific and policy agenda,
did not in my opinion help matters in polarising explanations along the axes of selection
vs causation or individual responsibility vs material influences. This polarises solutions
just as much as it does explanations in a way that seems to me to be counter-productive.
Thus, it may be just as misguided to advocate the redistribution of income as the
solution, as either the absolute or relative poverty model would suggest, as it is to
advocate that health inequalities would disappear if working class people smoked less or
ate more healthy diets. The potential effectiveness of income redistribution as the
remedy for health inequalities, in my view, rests either on the dubious assumption that
there is a single underlying psychosocial mechanism at work or that improvements in
material standards would translate, via health behaviours or changes in values, into
better health. Both are problematic.
The alternative view stems directly from a lifecourse perspective in which particular sets
of influences at particular stages demand particular solutions. These might include
nutritional policies for pregnant women, educational policies to improve standards in
schools, social policies to reduce the problem of disengagement among young people,
economic policies to reduce unemployment, anti-discrimination policies to prevent
discrimination against disabled people, and work-place policies to reduce levels of
stress. At the present time, this multifaceted approach to the problem seems to be the
one favoured by the British Government. It will offend those who see this as piecemeal
attempts to tackle a big problem, but it is almost certainly closer to the evidence for all
that.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Amos, A. and Hillouse, A. (1991) Tobacco Use in Scotland. Edinburgh: ASH Scotland.
Barker, D. (1992) The Fetal and Infant Origins of Adult Disease. BMJ Publications,
London.
Blane, D., Davey Smith, G. and Bartley, M. (1993) Social selection: what does it
contribute to social class differences in health? Sociology of Health and Illness, 15 (1),
1-15.
Blane, D., Bartley, M., Davey Smith, G., Filakti, H., Bethune, A. and Harding, S. (1994)
Social patterning of medical mortality in youth and early adulthood. Social Science &
Medicine 39, 361-366.
Blaxter, M. (1990) Health and Lifestyles. Tavistock/Routledge, London.
Chadwick, E. (1842) Report of an Enquiry into the Sanitary Conditions of the Labouring
Population of Great Britain. Poor Law Commission, London.
Cox, B. D., Blaxter, M., Buckie, A. L. J. et al. (1987) The Health and Lifestyle Survey.
Health Promotion Research Trust, London.
Davey Smith, G., Bartley, M. and Blane, D. (1990) The Black Report on socio-economic
inequalities 10 years on. British Medical Journal, 301, 373-377.
Davey Smith, G., Blane D. and Bartley, M. (1994) Explanations for socio-economic
differentials in mortality: evidence from Britain and elsewhere. European Journal of
Public Health, 4, 131-144.
Department of Health and Social Security (1976) Prevention and Health: Everybodys
Business. HMSO, London.
Der, G., Macintyre, S., Ford, G., Hunt, K. & West, P (1997) The relationship of household
income to a range of health measures in three age cohorts in the West of Scotland.
Society for Social Medicine Conference, York.
Dorling, D. (1997) Death in Britain: How local mortality rates have changed: 1950s1990s. Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York.
Ford, G., Ecob, R., Hunt, K., Macintyre, S. and West, P. (1994) Patterns of class
inequality throughout the lifespan: class gradients at 15, 35 and 55 in the West of
Scotland. Social Science & Medicine, 39, 1037-1050.
Glendinning, A., Hendry, L. and Shucksmith, J. (1995) Lifestyle, health and social class
in adolescence. Social Science & Medicine, 41, 235-248.
Goldblatt, P. (1990) Longitudinal Study: Mortality and Social Organisation, HMSO,
London.
Journal of Biosocial
Martin, C. J., Platt, S. D. and Hunt, S. M. (1987) Housing conditions and ill health. British
Medical Journal, 294, 1125-1127.
McLoone, P. and Boddy, F. A. (1994) Deprivation and mortality in Scotland, 1981 and
1991. British Medical Journal 309, 1465-1470.
Montgomery, S. M. (1996) The Relationship of Unemployment with Health and Health
Behaviour in Young Men. PhD thesis. SSRU, City University, London.
Pearce, N., Marshall, S. and Borman, B. (1991) Undiminished social class mortality
differences in New Zealand men. New Zealand Medical Journal, 104, 153-156.
Power, C., Manor, O. and Fox, J. (1991) Health and Class: The Early Years. Chapman
and Hall, London.
Power, C., Matthews, S. and Manor, O. (1996) Inequalities in self rated health in the
1958 birth cohort: lifetime social circumstances or social mobility? British Medical
Journal, 313; 449-53.
Power, C., Hertzman, M. D., Matthews, S. and Manor, O. (1997) Social differences in
health life cycle effects between ages 23 to 33 in the 1958 birth cohort. American
Journal of Public Health, 87,1499-1503.
Rahkonen, O. and Lahelma, E. (1992) Gender, social class and illness among young
people. Social Science & Medicine, 34, 649-655.
Rahkonen, O., Arber, S. and Lahelma, E. (1997a) Health-related social mobility: a
comparison of currently employed men and women in Britain and Finland. Scandinavian
Journal of Social Medicine, 25, 83-92.
Rahkonen, O., Lahelma, E. and Huuhka, M. (1997b) Past or present? Childhood living
conditions and current socioeconomic status as determinants of adult health. Social
Science & Medicine, 44, 327-336.
Robertson, B., Uitenbroek, D., Hay, S. and Platt, S. (1997) The RUHBC-CATI Lifestyle
and Health Survey: Health Behaviours Among Adults in Glasgow 1988-1995. The
Research Unit in Health and Behavioural Change, The University of Edinburgh.
Rose, G. and Marmot, M. (1981) Social class and coronary heart disease. British Heart
Journal, 45, 13-19.
Sooman, A., Macintyre, S. and Anderson, A. (1993) Scotlands health: a more difficult
challenge for some. The price and availability of healthy foods in socially contrasting
localities in the West of Scotland. Health Bulletin, 51, 276-284.
Stevenson, T. H. C. (1928) The vital statistics of wealth and poverty. Journal of the
Royal Statistical Society, XLI, 207-230.
Strachan, D. P., Anderson, H. R., Limb, E. S., ONeill, A. and Wells, N. (1994) A national
survey of asthma prevalence, severity and treatment in Great Britain. Archives of
Disease in Childhood, 70, 174-178.
Stronks, K. (1997) Socio-economic Inequalities in Health: Individual Choice or Social
Circumstances? Ponsen & Looijen BV, Wageningen.
Page 21 - Occasional Paper September 1998
Sweeting, H. and West, P. (1995) Family life and health in adolescence: a role for culture
in the health inequalities debate? Social Science & Medicine, 40, 163-175.
Timms, D. W. G. (1995) Mental Health, Mental Illness and Family Background. Project
Metropolitan Research Report No 42, Department of Sociology, University of Stockholm,
Stockholm.
Townsend, P. and Davidson, N. (Eds) Inequalities in Health:
Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1982.
Vger, D. and Illsley, R. (1992) Inequality, health and policy in East and West Europe.
International Journal of Health Sciences, 3, 225-239.
Vger, D. and Illsley, R. (1996) Explaining health inequalities, beyond Black and Barker:
a discussion of some issues emerging in the decade following the Black Report.
European Sociological Review, 11, 219-241.
Valkonen, T., Martelin, T., Rimpela, A., Notkola, V. and Savela, S. (1993) Socioeconomic mortality differences in Finland 1981-90. Statistics Finland, Population: 1.,
Helsinki.
Wadsworth, M. E. J. (1986) Serious illness in childhood and its association with later life
achievement. In Class and Health: Research and Longitudinal Data (Edited by Wilkinson
R. G.), pp. 50-74. Tavistock, London.
Wadsworth, M. E. J. (1997) Health inequalities in the life course perspective. Social
Science & Medicine, 44, 859-869.
West, P. (1988) Inequalities? Social class differentials in health in British youth. Social
Science & Medicine, 27, 291-296.
West, P. (1991) Rethinking the health selection explanation for health inequalities.
Social Science & Medicine, 32, 373-384.
West, P. (1997) Health inequalities in the early years: is there equalisation in youth?
Social Science & Medicine, 44, pp. 833-858.
West, P., Macintyre, S., Annandale, E. and Hunt, K. (1990) Social class and health in
youth: findings from The West of Scotland Twenty-07 Study. Social Science & Medicine,
30, 665-673.
Whitehead, M. (1987) The Health Divide. Health Education Council, London.
Wilkinson, R. G. (1986) Class and Health: Research and Longitudinal Data. Tavistock,
London.
Wilkinson, R. G. (1996) Unhealthy Societies The Afflictions of Inequality. Routledge,
London.
Williams, R. (1990) A Protestant Legacy: Attitudes to Death and Illness among Older
Aberdonians. Oxford University Press, Oxford.