Comparing health inequality in men and women

doi:10.1136/bmj.321.7266.961

BMJ 2000;321:961 ( 14 October )

Letters

Comparing health inequality in men and women

Choice of indicator is important

Authors' reply

Choice of indicator is important

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

EDITOR $---$ The paper by Sacker et al,¹ and the associated editorial by Vågerö,² discuss differences in health inequalitybetween men and women measured with two alternative schemes. Wehave been investigating a similar problem $---$ the indicators thatare most sensitive for measuring health inequalities in an olderpopulation.

Sacker et al included only those people in paid work in 1981. The 1981 census shows that 20% of men and 49% of women in theage groups they consider were not working, so this restrictionwill have resulted in many people in the sample being excluded.Such exclusions are known to result in bias.³ In the olderpopulation the use of classifications based on current occupationis problematic. Other common indicators of socioeconomic status,such as income and education, also present difficulties. Thisis because of the strong association between income and employmentstatus and because most of today's older population (particularly. . . [Full text of this article]

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us Add to Digg

Digg

StumbleUpon Add to Technorati

Technorati What's this?

Relevant Article

Comparing health inequality in men and women: prospective study of mortality 1986-96: Amanda Sacker, David Firth, Ray Fitzpatrick, Kevin Lynch, and Mel Bartley
BMJ 2000 320: 1303-1307. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

van den Bos, G A M, Smits, J P J M, Westert, G P, van Straten, A (2002). Socioeconomic variations in the course of stroke: unequal health outcomes, equal care?. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 56: 943-948 [Abstract] [Full text]