Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2005;330:1507 (25 June), doi:10.1136/bmj.330.7506.1507
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
EDITORWe agree with Shaw et al that the method of measuring inequality in health outcomes used in setting the government targets is problematic (A Low, UKPHA (UK Public Health Association), 13th annual public health forum, Gateshead, April 2005).1 However, the government's targets are based on reducing relative gaps in life expectancy and infant mortality.2 The slope index of inequality (SII) used by Shaw et al measures absolute gaps.
The distinction between absolute and relative gaps becomes important when comparisons are made over time. Increasing life expectancy over time with no change in the slope (constant SII) implies a faster rate of progress for those at the bottom of the scale than for those at the top. The figure shows a gain of 10 years of life expectancy for both groups; the rate of improvement for the poor group is 14% (10/70) and for the wealthy group 12.5% (10/80).
| |||||||||||
Anne Low, director of public health
Derwentside Primary Care Trust, Shotley Bridge Community Hospital, Consett, County Durham DH8 0NB
Allan Low, freelance health economist
Newcastle upon Tyne NE17 7AY alow@btinternet.com