- David J Hunter, professor of health policy and management1,
- Jennie Popay, professor of sociology and public health2,
- Carol Tannahill, director3,
- Margaret Whitehead, WH Duncan professor of public health4
- 1Wolfson Research Institute, Durham University Queen’s Campus, Stockton on Tees TS17 6BH
- 2School of Health and Medicine, Division of Health Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YT
- 3Glasgow Centre for Population Health, Glasgow G2 4DL
- 4School of Population, Community, and Behavioural Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3GB
- d.j.hunter{at}durham.ac.uk
The World Health Organization’s Commission on Social Determinants of Health published its hard hitting and well received report in mid-2008 with the stark message that “social injustice is killing people on a grand scale.”1 2 The commission’s chair, Michael Marmot, was promptly invited by the UK prime minister and then health secretary for England to consider the implications for health inequalities in England, with a view to informing the government’s post-2010 strategy for tackling them. Fresh thinking and renewed momentum were needed in the face of mounting evidence that the 2010 inequalities targets would not be met.3 The government’s national equality panel has since concluded that inequalities in earnings and incomes are high in the United Kingdom compared with other industrialised countries.4 Economic advantage and disadvantage reinforce themselves across the life cycle.
The Marmot review team submitted its final report to ministers in December, marking the end of a frenetic period of activity involving nine task groups, three working committees, and two interim reports.5 The timing has eerie echoes of the groundbreaking 1980 Black report.6 Although the review chaired by Sir Douglas Black was set in motion by a Labour government, it reported to a Conservative one that was distinctly cool on the subject of health inequalities.
The Marmot report may avoid a similar fate: an election is some months away and all political parties have affirmed …
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: Venous thrombosis in users of non-oral hormonal contraception: follow-up study, Denmark 2001-10
Published 16 May 2012
Re: Outcomes of elective induction of labour compared with expectant management: population based study
Published 16 May 2012
Re: Outcomes of elective induction of labour compared with expectant management: population based study
Published 16 May 2012
Re: Why the US healthcare system is failing, and what might rescue it
Published 16 May 2012
Re: Risk of cardiovascular serious adverse events associated with varenicline use for tobacco cessation: systematic review and meta-analysis
Published 16 May 2012
Most responses
Is spending on proton beam therapy for cancer going too far, too fast? (11 responses)
Published 17 Apr 2012 - 23:32
What are the benefits of an early diagnosis? (8 responses)
Published 18 Apr 2012
The psychiatric oligarchs who medicalise normality (8 responses)
Published 2 May 2012
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