Measuring Socioeconomic Status and Inequalities David I
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
PART 1 . PART 1 EVIDENCE OF SOCIAL INEQUALITIES IN CANCER CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 4. Measuring socioeconomic status and inequalities David I. Conway, Alex D. McMahon, Denise Brown, and Alastair H. Leyland “The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members.” Attributed to Mahatma Gandhi (our emphasis) Introduction fundamental, and stark example of tries (as detailed in Chapters 5 and 6), measuring health inequalities. The and they have an impact across the In 2008, the World Health Organi- authors of this chapter all work in cancer continuum, from burden and zation’s pioneering Commission on Glasgow, and are driven by the aim risk, to early detection, diagnosis, Social Determinants of Health mea- of tackling this inequality. and treatment (see Chapter 7), and sured the extent of health inequali- Measures of health inequality, to outcomes including quality of life, ties in the city of Glasgow, Scotland, which are determined by inequali- mortality, and survival. Inequalities as an example. The final report re- ties in income, wealth, and power also exist across other population vealed that a boy in the deprived (WHO, 2010), are a reflection of the groups and communities (defined area of Calton had an average life levels of justice and fairness in so- by sex, age, race or ethnicity, geo- expectancy of 54 years compared ciety. The measurement of inequal- graphical area, time periods, and with a boy in the affluent suburb of ities in health is essential to define, health status, for example), although Lenzie, only 12 km away, who could describe, and understand the nature socioeconomic status (SES) is often expect to live to an age of 82 years of the public health problem; it is a a major factor in these differences (CSDH, 2008): a gap of 28 years. crucial first step in the development (United Kingdom Government, 2010; Michael Marmot, chair of the World of strategies and policies to tackle Krieger, 2014). This chapter de- Health Organization Commission, health inequalities, and in the moni- scribes two key aspects of measure- later reflected in his book The Health toring and evaluation of the effective- ment and analysis of SES in relation Gap that this “was a tale of two cit- ness of approaches. to cancer: indicators of SES, and ies ... and they are both in Glasgow” Socioeconomic inequalities can metrics of health inequality between (Marmot, 2015). This is a most basic, exist both within and between coun- socioeconomic strata. Part 1 • Chapter 4. Measuring socioeconomic status and inequalities 29 Indicators of SES vidual or area-based level. In social (e.g. Liberatos et al., 1988; Berkman epidemiology, these indicators are and Macintyre, 1997; Krieger, 2001; SES or socioeconomic position is used to capture and analyse the Galobardes et al., 2006a, b; Glymour a theoretical construct of socioeco- impacts of social determinants of et al., 2014). Drawing from and ex- nomic hierarchies with roots in the health (Glymour et al., 2014). Several panding on these reviews, we sum- social theories of Weber and Marx comprehensive reviews of SES indi- marize individual indicators of SES, (Lynch and Kaplan, 2000). SES is cators have discussed in detail the including examples of indicators and conceptualized through indicators strengths and weaknesses of the dif- notes on their interpretation, in Table or measures collected at the indi- ferent approaches to measurement 4.1. Table 4.1. Individual indicators of socioeconomic status: their measurement and interpretation (continued) Indicator Measurement and examples Interpretation and comments Income Individual or household: monthly or annual; Measures access to material resources (food, shelter, and before taxes; equivalized (household culture) and access to services (health care, leisure or income by household size) recreation activities, and education) Government or state welfare benefit Relates to social standing or prestige support; food stamps Reverse causality: health impacts on level of income Absolute or relative poverty thresholds Context-specific: country, sex, age Education Educational attainment: highest level Reflects early-life SES, usually stable across the life-course attained; qualifications; years completed; Strong determinant of employment and income ISCED Influences position in society or social networks Affects access to health care or information Determines values, cognitive decision-making, risk taking, behaviours, and life skills Affects exposure to and ability to cope with stressors Reverse causality: childhood poor health impacts on school attendance and attainment Context-specific: country education system, age cohorts Occupation Employment or job history: longest, first, Reflects social standing or prestige, working relations and last; blue or white collar; manual or non- conditions manual; “head of household”; RGSC; Strong determinant of income NS-SEC; European Socioeconomic Based on educational attainment Classification; American Census Influences social networks, work-based stress, autonomy Classification; Wright’s Social Classification or control (Wright, 1997); Lombardi et al. Social Reflects occupational hazards, exposures, or demands Classification (Lombardi et al., 1988); Excludes some groups (e.g. retired people, unpaid home Erikson and Goldthorpe Classification workers or “housewives”, students, some self-employed) (Erikson and Goldthorpe, 1992); country- Context-specific: country (level of industrialization or specific classifications; ISEI; SIOPS deindustrialization), age cohorts Unemployment experience (ever or number Unemployment has particular impacts on social exclusion of years) and income, poverty, and access to health care Type of contract: salaried or hourly wage; Reverse causality: health impacts on (un)employment part-time, full-time, or zero-hours; short- or long-term contract; job insecurity Wealth Assets (total or specific): land, property, Reflects material aspect of socioeconomic circumstances livestock; housing tenure; ownership of car, Relates to income refrigerator, television, etc.; DHS; FAS Context-specific: country, rural or urban Reverse causality: health impacts ability to accumulate wealth Housing Housing quality or conditions: overcrowding Direct impact: exposures for specific diseases (number of residents per number of rooms); Relates to material circumstances dampness; housing type; water and Context-specific: country development sanitation Reverse causality: health impacts on money available to spend on housing 30 Table 4.1. Individual indicators of socioeconomic status: their measurement and interpretation (continued) Indicator Measurement and examples Interpretation and comments Compositional Combinations of SES metrics: education or Attempts to capture multiple dimensions of SES; however, PART 1 income (study-specific); income and wealth composite indicators perhaps mask specific relationships CHAPTER 4 (FAS); WAMI and mechanisms which individual SES measurements Historic indicators: Hollingshead index provide of social position; Duncan index; Nam–Powers socioeconomic status; Warner’s index of status characteristics Childhood SES Parental SES: parental (father’s or Used in life-course SES analyses to capture childhood mother’s) occupation; household income socioeconomic circumstances or conditions; child-related benefits (e.g. entitlement to free school meals) Educational attainment (end of childhood or early years) Subjective SES Self-identification, comparison, or Individual’s perception of his or her socioeconomic standing satisfaction: self-identification as upper, Relates to objective indicators of SES middle, or lower class; comparison of Could be part of psychosocial pathway of health inequalities income with others; satisfaction with income; MacArthur Scales of subjective social status Social capital Social support, inclusion, or exclusion: Commonly measures domains of connectedness, more than 100 tools identified in recent community participation, and citizenship; no single systematic review (25 with validated instrument measures all aspects within the three domains psychometric elements; Cordier et al., of social inclusion 2017); CAMSIS Hierarchical social interactions reflect social and material advantage; conversely, social exclusion from social and community life can result from economic deprivation and low SES CAMSIS, Cambridge Social Interaction and Stratification Scale; DHS, Demographic and Health Surveys Wealth Index; FAS, Family Affluence Scale; ISCED, International Standard Classification of Education; ISEI, International Socioeconomic Index; NS-SEC, National Statistics Socioeconomic Classification (UK); RGSC, Registrar General’s Social Classification (UK); SES, socioeconomic status; SIOPS, Treiman’s Standard International Occupational Prestige Scale; WAMI, water and sanitation, the selected approach to measuring household wealth (assets), maternal education, and income index. SES indicators have typically 2008), lung (Sidorchuk et al., 2009), These indicators are frequently used included individual measures of in- stomach (Uthman et al., 2013), colon in descriptive epidemiological analy- come, education, and occupational and rectum (Manser and Bauerfeind, ses of cancer registry data at the state social class, and these measures 2014), head and neck (Conway et or regional level (Harper and Lynch, have formed the mainstay of cancer al., 2015), and breast (Lundqvist et 2005) or country level (Purkayastha et socioeconomic analyses in relation al., 2016). These analyses sought