Social inequality on health is well known. The measure of socioeconomic status remains difficult because it is a multidimensional concept that requires the use of multiple indicators. The indicators used to measure social status are education, occupation and income. They each have their limitations that need to be acknowledged in order to interpret the nature of inequality. In addition, they must be evaluated in context. Several examples of social inequality faced with exposure to risk factors for health are given in this document. To reduce and prevent health inequalities, it is important to have systems for monitoring the evolution of risk factors. These systems can quickly identify the growing inequalities and to identify the groups most affected.Socio-economic status determines significant inequalities in health in the population. These inequalities are often obvious, especially in clinical practice. However, define and measure these inequalities is not always simple. Socioeconomic status can be defined from access to power, prestige, wealth, etc. It is a multidimensional concept to be described from multiple indicators. It can also be assessed at different levels. The individual measures the behavioral characteristics and history of the individual. The measure may also be supra-individual, and in this case, consider the context in which health problems occur.Pearce has shown, using the example of mortality from asthma, it is not always possible to separate the proximal risk factors or a biological disease, its social determinants. Epidemic deaths asthma, a beta-agonist, has been particularly severe among the indigenous communities of New Zealand Maori. This high rate was due not to a genetic susceptibility, but the difficulties of access to health services for Maori who grew to rely excessively on the use of beta-agonists in cases of severe asthma attacks. This example shows that it would be easy to attribute to a genetic susceptibility or of biological origin of health states that are in fact determined by the socio-economic status. The same is true if only one measure of socioeconomic status such as education or profession, which alone can not reflect the complexity of socio-economic determinants that affect health. In other words, we can not conclude on the basis of a single index, that differences in health between different ethnic groups are due to a biological factor although it was considered statistically controlled factor socio-economic status.
[...] It is not clear that these scales are valid for classifying women occupations and validity for measuring the socio-economic status women remains to be determined. Revenue Income is an indicator of access to resources that can influence health status. Its main limitation is that many people refuse to state their income. The prevalence of non-answers to questions on income varies between 10% and 25% depending on the type of questions and the method used to obtain information. It is a problem common to all populations in which this indicator is measured. [...]
[...] In other words, we can not conclude on the basis of a single index, that differences in health between different ethnic groups are due to a biological factor although it was considered statistically controlled factor socio-economic status. Individual Measures of Socioeconomic Status Indicators of socio-economic individual most often used are education, occupation and income. These indicators are correlated with each other. The level of education often determines the spectrum of occupations in which an individual has access and the profession itself is associated with income. [...]
[...] Monitoring is an essential component of the system of implementation of Structural Funds. Because of the difficulty in collecting information, it was not as effective as expected. The evaluation is done in three phases: pre-implementation, midterm and end of the period. Greater involvement of all stakeholders will further refine the analysis. Impact of Other Community Policies Contrary to structural policy, the following policies are not primarily aim to fight against regional disparities but have a strong territorial impact: enterprise policy, innovation and education. [...]
[...] Surveillance of Risk Factors According to Socioeconomic Levels Surveillance of risk factors is to regularly monitor the population trends in the indicators reflecting the exposure to environmental agents or behavior that may alter the state of health of the population. A monitoring system allows early detection of subgroups of the population at high risk or signs of increased incidence of certain maladies. Bus Health 2000 in Geneva conducts such monitoring of risk factors is based on specific behaviors (smoking, physical activity, nutrition) as well as cardiovascular risk factors (blood pressure, cholesterol, weight and height) at different groups socio-economic. [...]
[...] Interventions in the context of the Objective 3 were to integrate into the labor market youth, long-term unemployed and other social groups at risk of exclusion. They also promoted equal opportunities between women and men. The most successful are those that combine counseling, training and assistance in finding employment. In addition, the ESF provides funding for the adaptation of employment, education and training. Since 2000, he financed to the tune of 60 billion euros the plans derived from the European Employment Strategy (EES). [...]
Online readingwith our online reader
Content validatedby our reading committee