Dataset Information

Assessing equity in health, wealth, and civic engagement: a nationally representative survey, United States, 2020.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The principle of equity is fundamental to many current debates about social issues and plays an important role in community and individual health. Traditional research has focused on singular dimensions of equity (e.g., wealth), and often lacks a comprehensive perspective. The goal of this study was to assess relationships among three domains of equity, health, wealth, and civic engagement, in a nationally representative sample of U.S. residents.

Methods

We developed a conceptual framework to guide our inquiry of equity across health, wealth, and civic engagement constructs to generate a broad but nuanced understanding of equity. Through Ipsos' KnowledgePanel service, we conducted a cross-sectional, online survey between May 29-June 20, 2020 designed to be representative of the adult U.S.

Population

Based on our conceptual framework, we assessed the population-weighted prevalence of health outcomes and behaviors, as well as measures of wealth and civic engagement. We linked individual-level data with population-level environmental and social context variables. Using structural equation modeling, we developed latent constructs for wealth and civic engagement, to assess associations with a measured health variable.

Results

We found that the distribution of sociodemographic, health, and wealth measures in our sample (n = 1267) were comparable to those from other national surveys. Our quantitative illustration of the relationships among the domains of health, wealth, and civic engagement provided support for the interrelationships of constructs within our conceptual model. Latent constructs for wealth and civic engagement were significantly correlated (p = 0.013), and both constructs were used to predict self-reported health. Beta coefficients for all indicators of health, wealth, and civic engagement had the expected direction (positive or negative associations).

Conclusion

Through development and assessment of our comprehensive equity framework, we found significant associations among key equity domains. Our conceptual framework and results can serve as a guide for future equity research, encouraging a more thorough assessment of equity.

SUBMITTER: Stopka TJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8795944 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Certain environmental exposures, such as air pollution, are associated with COVID-19 incidence and mortality. To determine whether environmental context is associated with other COVID-19 experiences, we used data from the nationally representative Tufts Equity in Health, Wealth, and Civic Engagement Study data (n=1785; three survey waves 2020-2022). Environmental context was assessed using self-reported climate stress and county-level air pollution, greenness, toxic release inventory site, and heatwave data. Self-reported COVID-19 experiences included willingness to vaccinate against COVID-19, health impacts from COVID-19, receiving assistance for COVID-19, and provisioning assistance for COVID-19. Self-reported climate stress in 2020 or 2021 was associated with increased COVID-19 vaccination willingness by 2022 (odds ratio [OR] = 2.35; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.47, 3.76), even after adjusting for political affiliation (OR = 1.79; 95% CI = 1.09, 2.93). Self-reported climate stress in 2020 was also associated with increased likelihood of receiving COVID-19 assistance by 2021 (OR = 1.89; 95% CI = 1.29, 2.78). County-level exposures (i.e., less greenness, more toxic release inventory sites, more heatwaves) were associated with increased vaccination willingness. Air pollution exposure in 2020 was positively associated with likelihood of provisioning COVID-19 assistance in 2020 (OR = 1.16 per μg/m3; 95% CI = 1.02, 1.32). Associations between certain environmental exposures and certain COVID-19 outcomes were stronger among those who identify as a race/ethnicity other than non-Hispanic White and among those who reported experiencing discrimination; however, these trends were not consistent. A latent variable representing a summary construct for environmental context was associated with COVID-19 vaccination willingness. Our results add to the growing body of literature suggesting that intersectional equity issues affecting likelihood of exposure to adverse environmental conditions are also associated with health-related outcomes.

Project description:Background and aimsDifferent cannabis administration methods have differential impacts on health. This study aimed to describe administration methods among cannabis users in the United States categorized by (1) use purpose and (2) state legalization status.DesignCross-sectional, probability-based online survey in 2020.SettingAll 50 states and Washington DC in the United States.ParticipantsA total of 21 903 adults (18+) were recruited from a probability-based online panel to provide nationally representative estimates.MethodsEleven administration methods were grouped into combustion, vaporization, ingestion and topicals. Weighted prevalence was reported among (1) medical-only, recreational-only and dual-purpose users based on self-reported purposes and (2) users in states that legalized both recreational and medical cannabis (RCL states), legalized medical cannabis only and did not legalize cannabis.FindingsAmong past-year users, the proportions of medical-only, recreational-only and dual-purpose users were 25.55, 43.81 and 30.64%, respectively. The most common primary methods were combustion (42.08%) and topicals (28.65%) for medical purposes and combustion (72.07%) and ingestion (15.05%) for recreational purposes. Dual-purpose users were more likely to report combustion and vaporization but less likely to report ingestion and topicals as primary methods for medical use than medical-only users (P < 0.001) and more likely to report combustion and topicals but less likely to report ingestion as primary methods for recreational use than recreational-only users (P < 0.041). A higher proportion of dual-purpose users (82.82%) used more than one method than medical-only (40.52%) and recreational-only users (63.91%) (P < 0.001). For both medical and recreational purposes, RCL states had the lowest rate of combustion and the highest rates of ingestion and topicals reported as primary methods (P < 0.033). The rate of using more than one administration method did not differ across states (P > 0.05).ConclusionCannabis users whose purposes are medical, recreational or both tend to differ in their selected administration methods.