- Sebastian Taylor, senior research fellow1,
- Alireza Marandi, professor of paediatrics2
- 1Social Determinants of Health, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London WC1E 6BT
- 2Shaheed Beheshti University, Evin, Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran
- Correspondence to: S Taylor sebastian.taylor{at}ucl.ac.uk
- Accepted 5 May 2008
Socioeconomic development has brought major improvements in global health. Advances in health care have played an important role. However, social determinants—social, economic, political, cultural, and environmental factors—heavily influence people’s demand for, access to, and use of health services. As a reflection of wider social inequalities, health systems tend to favour the better off, sustaining and sometimes amplifying health inequity (box 1).1
Box 1 China: growth and inequity2
Between 1978 and 1998 the number of people below the poverty line in China fell from 250 million to 42 million
As per capita income has risen, so too has inequality—not only in economic terms—but also in social terms that affect access to health services
Changing patterns of income and employment have produced a “floating population” of 100-200 million migrant workers, who move from rural to urban areas
Often on short term contracts, and without urban residency status, these people cannot access health care and other statutory benefits, including reproductive and sexual health services
In 2005, around 80% of new HIV infections in Beijing were in migrant workers
This is not inevitable. Healthcare systems and services can promote health equity if they are designed to maximise the “fit” between patients and providers.3 We use examples of health programmes taken from low, middle, and high income countries (Cambodia, Iran, Mexico, and the United States) to show how designing health services to take account of and work with wider socioeconomic determinants can improve health equity by enhancing service delivery and promoting uptake, particularly among the poor. Limited availability of data and limited attention to equity when evaluating health programmes make it difficult to reach definite conclusions, but in …
Sign in
Article access
Article access for 1 day
Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*
The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record







CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mendeley
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
Re: Ventilator associated pneumonia
Published 30 May 2012
Re: Restless legs syndrome
Published 30 May 2012
Author's reply
Published 30 May 2012
Re: Full access to trial data holds many benefits and a few pitfalls, conference hears
Published 30 May 2012
Restless Legs Syndrome: Fact or Fiction
Published 30 May 2012
Most responses
Venous thrombosis in users of non-oral hormonal contraception: follow-up study, Denmark 2001-10 (12 responses)
Published 10 May 2012 - 23:32
The psychiatric oligarchs who medicalise normality (9 responses)
Published 2 May 2012 - 15:42
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? No (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? Yes (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
The hardest thing: admitting error (7 responses)
Published 2 May 2012 - 12:27