- 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
Personal subscribers, sign in here:
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
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
The decline in the breast cancer incidence is 1.2% and it is not significant.
Published 10 February 2012
'twas ever thus
Published 10 February 2012
The value of historic human remains
Published 10 February 2012
In Praise of British Literature
Published 10 February 2012
Is real shared decision making possible?
Published 10 February 2012
Most responses
Does anyone understand the government’s plan for the NHS? (17 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012
Bad medicine: medical nutrition (15 responses)
Published 18 Jan 2012
Shared decision making: really putting patients at the centre of healthcare (7 responses)
Published 27 Jan 2012
Why legislation is necessary for my health reforms (7 responses)
Published 1 Feb 2012
Search for evidence goes on (5 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012