Chapter 11: CAGE(s) and Health Flashcards
How does the World Health Organization define health?
It defines healthy broadly as “a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity”
How does House describe the approach to health in the mid-twentieth century?
It was a purely biomedical approach to health and illness. Inequalities in health were analyzed and examined largely through the biology of the individual and the workings of the medical system. An individual’s behaviour in the form of “lifestyle” choices (ex. smoking, alcoholism, obesity, and physical exercise) was believed to have a significant effect on their health.
- individual biology does not explain health inequality accurately
What is the biggest factor in determining our health?
Factors such as socio-economic status plays a significant role in health experiences
- smoking, immoderate eating, etc. account only moderately (10-20%) for socio-economic inequalities in health
What psychosocial factor was studied in the 1960s that has a significant impact on health?
Stress.
Connection between SES and physical and mental health largely reflects:
(1) differential exposure to social stress over the life course based on social status
(2) status-based differences in the distribution of personal and social resources (ex. mastery and/or social support) to buffer the effects of these stressors
- aligns with the “exposure-resource” framework
Define psychosocial risk factors.
A system of exposures, resources, and situational variables believed to have an impact on health; they include mastery or sense of control, self-esteem, ease or availability of social supports, negative life events, and daily exposure to stress or exposure to traumatic events.
Define the fundamental cause theory.
Link and Phelan’s sociologically informed theory of the reasons for the strong associations between social factors and disease.
Link and Phelan recommend a focus on macro factors like “access to knowledge, money, power, prestige, and social connections” and the ways in which these factors can influence the exposure to health risks and preventive measures in order to explain long-time associations between inequality and health.
Despite medical advances, the underlying fact is that those from low SES communities lack resources to protect and/or improve their health status.
As new risk factors and new technologies are discovered, those people in society with better resources and connections are more able to benefit from new knowledge and avoid health risks.
What does House believe we should focus on in regards to health?
Investigators should concentrate on factors such as socio-economic status and “race” or ethnicity because these characteristics “shape individual exposure to and experience of virtually all known psychosocial, as well as many environmental and biomedical risk factors, and these risk factors help to explain the size and persistence of social disparities in health”
How is House’s framework (pg. 256) criticized?
Although House’s conceptual framework includes class, ethnicity, and gender, his inclusion is additive rather than interactive.
Gender and race or ethnicity are not considered to be related and that both race or ethnicity and gender are thought to be mediated by socio-economic status in their relation to health outcomes.
Age and the influence of social time are not explicitly accounted for, and the explanatory variables (ex. social supports and social roles) are only “minorly” affected by gender and ethnicity.
This conceptualization continues to treat gender, race, ethnicity, and socio-economic status as variables that can in some way be viewed as separate from one another, ignoring intersectionality.
Who has the health advantage?
Those who possess more resources (ex. income, education, and social connections) often enjoy longer and healthier (both physical and mental) lives than people lower in the class structure. Health education and awareness, access to prevention, and the capacity to avoid risk factors (ex. toxic neighbourhoods)—all of which are resources held by members of the middle and upper classes—contribute to health advantage.
How does life expectancy change depending on SES and depending on gender?
People living in the highest-income neighbourhoods had a higher life expectancy than people in the lowest-income neighbourhoods.
Women have a higher life-expectancy than men in all income groups, as income rises, the life expectancy gap between men and women diminishes: from 6.1 years in the lowest-income group to 3.7 years in the highest.
How does life expectancy vary across regions in Canada?
Those born in the territories (Yukon, the Northwest Territories, and Nunavut) have a life expectancy far lower than those born in other provinces.
- in Nunavut, women live on average 73.9 years, while men live about 68.8 years
- in Ontario, women have an average life expectancy of 83.9 and men 79.8
Although the average life-expectancy rate increased for Canadians on the whole between 1991 and 2001, an analysis of life expectancy for the majority of the Inuit population in Canada showed no increase for that period of time, and life expectancy of Inuit at birth averaged 68 years.
How does life expectancy vary across cities in Canada?
In Vancouver life expectancy at birth is 81.1 years, while in Greater Sudbury it is only 76.7 years.
Mortality differences between rural and urban regions
- generally higher mortality rates due to injuries and various occupational hazards, particularly for men in rural areas
Health patterns across regional Census Metropolitan Areas show that CMAs in Atlantic Canada each have life expectancies below the Canadian national average.
Within Ontario, CMAs show variation between the north and the south, with northern Ontario CMAs showing lower life-expectancy rates.
How does income level affect life expectancy?
Research on mortality shows that health status is correlated with income level
- health status in some contexts deteriorates with incremental declines in income.
- in places where incomes are more variable, death rates are higher
Compared with findings in the US, national socio-economic gradients in health are less evident in Canada; yet significant relationships between health and income exist both across and within Canadian cities and neighbourhoods.
What is the question related to the correlation between SES and health? What research has been done surrounding it?
Does low income, education, and bad jobs result in poor health and increased risk of death or do those with poor and declining health consequently experience lower income and education levels.
Phelan and Link argue that higher socio-economic status enables individuals to marshal greater flexible resources in protecting their health (ex. by moving to healthier neighbourhoods)
- they found significantly stronger relationships between preventable causes of mortality and SES compared with less preventable forms of mortality
Individuals with higher SES are able to better avoid health risks from know causes of disease.
- this relationship is less for diseases that are less preventable and/or less curable.
This means that rather than ill health primarily influencing SES level, the relationship between SES and health is one where SES enables individuals to better avoid and predict health risks.
What are the two streams in the current stress research?
- Examines the extent to which different societal groups (ex. varying by income, race/ethnicity, age or gender) are exposed to chronic strains and stressful events and, in doing so, documents the effect of inequality on population mental health;
- Focuses on individual perceptions of stress and the resources or buffers at hand for maintaining mental health
The conclusion is that the two approaches are “complementary”
Define class-linked stress.
Class linked stress is stress exposures that are largely dependent on social status. Example: working-class and lower-income individuals are more frequently employed in physically stressful jobs (ex. where there are extreme temperatures, high noise levels, shift work, or noxious fumes, or where the worker has to work at an assembly-line pace).
People with less power in society are more exposed to ongoing life stresses and strains and often have fewer resources and social supports to help them cope.
The development of psychosocial resources, such as mastery, self-esteem, and the perception of control over one’s environment, is hindered for those who encounter ongoing structural barriers and disadvantages.
- schizophrenia may be related to class-linked stress
What are some research findings in relation to low-income and life expectancy?
Low-income populations were 16 times more likely to attempt suicide than high-income populations
Infant mortality rates are much high in Canadian territories
The length of time individuals spend in either economic advantage or disadvantage may influence health trajectories over the life course
How is mental health affected by SES?
It’s been found that living in poverty can be a stronger predictor of poor mental health than being enlisted for the war.
The poor, the young, ethnic minorities, and blacks have higher rates of mental illness than the well-to-do, older persons, ethnic majorities, and whites.
- the lower the person’s income, the worst their mental health
How does being Aboriginal affect health?
Aboriginal peoples in Canada face many health challenges, their rating on a variety of health status measures is worse than those of non-Aboriginals.
- aboriginals are twice as likely to be hospitalized due to kidney disease and heart attacks, than non-Aboriginals.
- 22% of First Nations men have high blood pressure compared with 8% of non-Aboriginal men in Canada
The rate of tuberculosis among Inuit is 92.0 per 100,000/year compared with a rate of 30 among First Nations groups and 1.3 among non-Aboriginals in Canada.
Aboriginal people were found to be much more likely to have cardiovascular disease than those of European ancestry (18.5% compared to 7.6%)
What is the leading cause of death for Aboriginals?
For Aboriginal people, the leading cause of death is from injury, while injuries sit as the 4th leading cause of death in Canada for others.
Although the Aboriginal population is substantially younger than non-Aboriginals in Canada (median age 27 compared to 40), even when controlling for age, there are significantly more injuries among Aboriginal people.