Rethinking the relationship between socio-economic status and health: Making the case for sociological theory in health inequality research

Øversveen, Emil; Rydland, Håvard T.; Bambra, Clare; Eikemo, Terje Andreas

doi:10.1177/1403494816686711

Cited by 53 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 68 publications

(100 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As is well documented, there are differences between the health outcomes of different socio‐economic groups. This relationship is often characterised as linear and unidirectional, rather than emerging differently according to “patterned networks of social interaction.” Taking this into account, we suggest that differences we found in relation to gender across and within socio‐economic gradients, should be anticipated and further explored. To demonstrate the complexity and multiple reasons for support or opposition for obesity prevention regulations, we use a sociological and gender lens in this last section to suggest why these differences may occur.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Why do the public support or oppose obesity prevention regulations? Results from a South Australian population survey

Farrell

Moore

Warin

et al. 2018

Health Prom J of Aust

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sociodemographic differences in support appeared to reflect gendered responsibilities for food provision and concerns about the material constraints of socioeconomic deprivation. Engagement with target populations may offer insights to optimise the acceptability of regulations and minimise unintended social consequences. SO WHAT?: Resistance to regulations amongst socioeconomically disadvantaged target populations warrants attention from public health advocates. Failure to accommodate concerns identified may further marginalise these groups.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Why do the public support or oppose obesity prevention regulations? Results from a South Australian population survey

Farrell

Moore

Warin

et al. 2018

Health Prom J of Aust

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although SES may, for example, include various measures such as education, income, and occupational status, used alone or in combinations, one could question whether the mechanisms connecting education to health and technology are the same as the mechanisms connecting occupation or insurance status to health and technology. In relevant literature, such reflections are by and large missing, and very different measures of social position are often treated and interpreted similarly, which may affect the applicability and usability of results [ 30 ]. The implications of choosing one approach over another may have consequences on both theoretical and practical understandings of the specific social factors that influence access and use of innovative health technologies.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Additional research, based on the findings discussed in this study, are needed, however, to reliably establish these conclusions. As much of the current research is dominated by the use of quantitative methods of social epidemiology, additional research may benefit from an increased use of qualitative, sociological methods in order to further investigate mechanisms and pathways leading to the (re)production of social inequalities in health as a result of innovative technologies [ 8 , 30 ]. It is, nevertheless, becoming increasingly important to investigate the social implications and consequences of a society increasingly influenced by technological innovations, including the ways in which these technologies may influence the unequal distribution of health as a human right.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Innovative technologies and social inequalities in health: A scoping review of the literature

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to systematically review the range, nature, and extent of current research activity exploring the influence of innovative health-related technologies on social inequalities in health, with specific focus on a deeper understanding of the variables used to measure this connection and the pathways leading to the (re)production of inequalities. A review process was conducted, based on scoping review techniques, searching literature published from January 1, 1996 to November 25, 2016 using MEDLINE, Scopus, and ISI web of science. Search, sorting, and data extraction processes were conducted by a team of researchers and experts using a dynamic, reflexive examination process. Of 4139 studies collected from the search process, a total of 33 were included in the final analysis. Results of this study include the classification of technologies based on how these technologies are accessed and used by end users. In addition to the factors and mechanisms that influence unequal access to technologies, the results of this study highlight the importance of variations in use that importantly shape social inequalities in health. Additionally, focus on health care services technologies must be accompanied by investigating emerging technologies influencing healthy lifestyle, genomics, and personalized devices in health. Findings also suggest that choosing one measure of social position over another has important implications for the interpretation of research results. Furthermore, understanding the pathways through which various innovative health technologies reduce or (re)produce social inequalities in health is context dependent. In order to better understand social inequalities in health, these contextual variations draw attention to the need for critical distinctions between technologies based on how these various technologies are accessed and used. The results of this study provide a comprehensive starting point for future research to further investigate how innovative technologies may influence the unequal distribution of health as a human right.

show abstract

“…2016, Freese and Lutfey 2011, Lutfey and Freese 2005, Øversveen et al . 2017, Veenstra 2017), with some focusing on the theory’s relationship with the relevant science of innovation and technology (Chang and Lauderdale 2009, Clouston et al . 2016, Weiss et al .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The diffusion of innovative diabetes technologies as a fundamental cause of social inequalities in health. The Nord‐Trøndelag Health Study, Norway

Weiss

Sund

Freese

et al. 2020

Sociology Health & Illness

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigates patterns of adoption and diffusion of innovative health technologies by socioeconomic status (SES) in order to assess the extent to which these technologies may be a fundamental cause of health-related inequalities. Quantitative analyses examined SES-based inequalities in the adoption and diffusion of diabetes technologies. Diabetes data from three panels of the Nord-Trøndelag Health Study (HUNT), Norway, were combined with income and education data. Cross-sectional and longitudinal regression analyses were used to examine relevant inequalities. Cross-sectional analyses suggest often present SESbased gradients in the adoption of diabetes technologies, favouring high-SES groups. Statistically significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) were most often present when technologies were new. In a cohort followed from 1984 to 1997, high SES individuals were more likely to adopt insulin injection technologies but, due to modest sample sizes, these inequalities were not statistically significant after adjusting for age, gender, and duration of illness. Moreover, compared to low SES individuals, high SES individuals are more active users of diabetes technologies. Results suggest that SES-based variations in access and use of innovative health technologies could act as a mechanism through which inequalities are reproduced. This study provides a discussion of mechanisms and a methodological foundation for further investigation.

show abstract

Rethinking the relationship between socio-economic status and health: Making the case for sociological theory in health inequality research

Cited by 53 publications

References 68 publications

Why do the public support or oppose obesity prevention regulations? Results from a South Australian population survey

Why do the public support or oppose obesity prevention regulations? Results from a South Australian population survey

Innovative technologies and social inequalities in health: A scoping review of the literature

The diffusion of innovative diabetes technologies as a fundamental cause of social inequalities in health. The Nord‐Trøndelag Health Study, Norway

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About