Dataset Information

Examining social determinants of health: the role of education, household arrangements and country groups by gender.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The majority of empirical studies focus on a single Social Determinant of Health (SDH) when analysing health inequalities. We go beyond this by exploring how the combination of education (micro level) and household arrangements (mezzo level) is associated with self-perceived health.

Methods

Our data source is the 2014 cross-sectional data from the European Survey of Living Conditions (EU-SILC). We calculate the predicted probabilities of poor self-perceived health for the middle-aged European population (30-59 years) as a function of the combination of the two SDHs. This is done separately for five European country groups (dual-earner; liberal; general family support; familistic; and post-socialist transition) and gender.

Results

We observe a double health gradient in all the country groups: first, there is a common health gradient by education (the higher the education, the lower the probability of poor health); second, household arrangements define a health gradient within each educational level according to whether or not the individual lives with a partner (living with a partner is associated with a lower probability of poor health). We observe some specificity in this general pattern. Familistic and post-socialist transition countries display large differences in the predicted probabilities according to education and household arrangements when compared with the other three country groups. Familistic and post-socialist transition countries also show the largest gender differences.

Conclusions

Health differences in European populations seem to be defined, first, by education and, second, by living or not living with a partner. Additionally, different social contexts (gender inequalities, educational profile, etc.) in European countries change the influences on health of both the SDHs for both women and men.

SUBMITTER: Guma J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6555096 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWomen and men share similar health challenges yet women report poorer health. The study investigates the social determinants of self-reported health in women and men, and male-female differences in health.MethodsData on 103154 men and 125728 women were analysed from 57 countries in the World Health Survey 2002-2004. Item Response Theory was used to construct a composite measure of health. Associations between health and determinants were assessed using multivariate linear regression. Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition partitioned the inequality in health between women and men into an "explained" component that arises because men and women differ in social and economic characteristics, and an "unexplained" component due to the differential effects of these characteristics. Decomposition was repeated for 18 countries in the World Health Organization (WHO) African region and 19 countries in the WHO European region.ResultsWomen's health was significantly lower than men's. Health was associated with education, household economic status, employment, and marital status after controlling for age. In the pooled analysis decomposition showed that 30% of the inequality was "explained", of which almost 75% came from employment, education, marital status. The differential effects of being in paid employment increased the inequality. When countries in Africa and Europe were compared, the "explained" component (31% and 39% respectively) was largely attributed to the social determinants in the African countries and to women's longevity in the European countries. Being in paid employment had a greater positive effect on the health of males in both regions.ConclusionsWays in which age and the social determinants contribute to the poorer health status of women compared with men varies between groups of countries. This study highlights the need for action to address social structures, institutional discrimination and harmful gender norms and roles that differently influence health with ageing.

Project description:IntroductionAuthors of knowledge syntheses make many subjective decisions during their review process. Those decisions, which are guided in part by author characteristics, can impact the conduct and conclusions of knowledge syntheses, which assimilate much of the evidence base in medical education. To better understand the evidence base, this study describes the characteristics of knowledge synthesis authors, focusing on gender, geography, and institution.MethodsIn 2020, the authors conducted meta-research to examine authors of 963 knowledge syntheses published between 1999 and 2019 in 14 core medical education journals.ResultsThe authors identified 4,110 manuscript authors across all authorship positions. On average there were 4.3 authors per knowledge synthesis (SD = 2.51, Median = 4, Range = 1-22); 79 knowledge syntheses (8%) were single-author publications. Over time, the average number of authors per synthesis increased (M = 1.80 in 1999; M = 5.34 in 2019). Knowledge syntheses were authored by slightly more females (n = 2047; 50.5%) than males (n = 2005; 49.5%) across all author positions. Authors listed affiliations in 58 countries, and 58 knowledge syntheses (6%) included authors from low- or middle-income countries. Authors from the United States (n = 366; 38%), Canada (n = 233; 24%), and the United Kingdom (n = 180; 19%) published the most knowledge syntheses. Authors listed affiliation at 617 unique institutions, and first authors represented 362 unique institutions with greatest representation from University of Toronto (n = 55, 6%). Across all authorship positions, the large majority of knowledge syntheses (n = 753; 78%) included authors from institutions ranked in the top 200 globally.ConclusionKnowledge synthesis author teams have grown over the past 20 years, and while there is near gender parity across all author positions, authorship has been dominated by North American researchers located at highly ranked institutions. This suggests a potential overrepresentation of certain authors with particular characteristics, which may impact the conduct and conclusions of medical education knowledge syntheses.