收入不平等对自评健康和全因死亡率的因果评估:系统回顾与元分析》。

IF 4.8 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Milbank Quarterly Pub Date : 2024-03-01 Epub Date: 2024-01-31 DOI:10.1111/1468-0009.12689
Michal Shimonovich, Mhairi Campbell, Rachel M Thomson, Philip Broadbent, Valerie Wells, Daniel Kopasker, Gerry McCARTNEY, Hilary Thomson, Anna Pearce, S Vittal Katikireddi
{"title":"收入不平等对自评健康和全因死亡率的因果评估:系统回顾与元分析》。","authors":"Michal Shimonovich, Mhairi Campbell, Rachel M Thomson, Philip Broadbent, Valerie Wells, Daniel Kopasker, Gerry McCARTNEY, Hilary Thomson, Anna Pearce, S Vittal Katikireddi","doi":"10.1111/1468-0009.12689","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Policy Points Income is thought to impact a broad range of health outcomes. However, whether income inequality (how unequal the distribution of income is in a population) has an additional impact on health is extensively debated. Studies that use multilevel data, which have recently increased in popularity, are necessary to separate the contextual effects of income inequality on health from the effects of individual income on health. Our systematic review found only small associations between income inequality and poor self-rated health and all-cause mortality. The available evidence does not suggest causality, although it remains methodologically flawed and limited, with very few studies using natural experimental approaches or examining income inequality at the national level.</p><p><strong>Context: </strong>Whether income inequality has a direct effect on health or is only associated because of the effect of individual income has long been debated. We aimed to understand the association between income inequality and self-rated health (SRH) and all-cause mortality (mortality) and assess if these relationships are likely to be causal.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched Medline, ISI Web of Science, Embase, and EconLit (PROSPERO: CRD42021252791) for studies considering income inequality and SRH or mortality using multilevel data and adjusting for individual-level socioeconomic position. We calculated pooled odds ratios (ORs) for poor SRH and relative risk ratios (RRs) for mortality from random-effects meta-analyses. We critically appraised included studies using the Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies - of Interventions tool. We assessed certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework and causality using Bradford Hill (BH) viewpoints.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>The primary meta-analyses included 2,916,576 participants in 38 cross-sectional studies assessing SRH and 10,727,470 participants in 14 cohort studies of mortality. Per 0.05-unit increase in the Gini coefficient, a measure of income inequality, the ORs and RRs (95% confidence intervals) for SRH and mortality were 1.06 (1.03-1.08) and 1.02 (1.00-1.04), respectively. A total of 63.2% of SRH and 50.0% of mortality studies were at serious risk of bias (RoB), resulting in very low and low certainty ratings, respectively. For SRH and mortality, we did not identify relevant evidence to assess the specificity or, for SRH only, the experiment BH viewpoints; evidence for strength of association and dose-response gradient was inconclusive because of the high RoB; we found evidence in support of temporality and plausibility.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Increased income inequality is only marginally associated with SRH and mortality, but the current evidence base is too methodologically limited to support a causal relationship. To address the gaps we identified, future research should focus on income inequality measured at the national level and addressing confounding with natural experiment approaches.</p>","PeriodicalId":49810,"journal":{"name":"Milbank Quarterly","volume":" ","pages":"141-182"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10938942/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Causal Assessment of Income Inequality on Self-Rated Health and All-Cause Mortality: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Michal Shimonovich, Mhairi Campbell, Rachel M Thomson, Philip Broadbent, Valerie Wells, Daniel Kopasker, Gerry McCARTNEY, Hilary Thomson, Anna Pearce, S Vittal Katikireddi\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1468-0009.12689\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Policy Points Income is thought to impact a broad range of health outcomes. However, whether income inequality (how unequal the distribution of income is in a population) has an additional impact on health is extensively debated. Studies that use multilevel data, which have recently increased in popularity, are necessary to separate the contextual effects of income inequality on health from the effects of individual income on health. Our systematic review found only small associations between income inequality and poor self-rated health and all-cause mortality. The available evidence does not suggest causality, although it remains methodologically flawed and limited, with very few studies using natural experimental approaches or examining income inequality at the national level.</p><p><strong>Context: </strong>Whether income inequality has a direct effect on health or is only associated because of the effect of individual income has long been debated. We aimed to understand the association between income inequality and self-rated health (SRH) and all-cause mortality (mortality) and assess if these relationships are likely to be causal.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched Medline, ISI Web of Science, Embase, and EconLit (PROSPERO: CRD42021252791) for studies considering income inequality and SRH or mortality using multilevel data and adjusting for individual-level socioeconomic position. We calculated pooled odds ratios (ORs) for poor SRH and relative risk ratios (RRs) for mortality from random-effects meta-analyses. We critically appraised included studies using the Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies - of Interventions tool. We assessed certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework and causality using Bradford Hill (BH) viewpoints.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>The primary meta-analyses included 2,916,576 participants in 38 cross-sectional studies assessing SRH and 10,727,470 participants in 14 cohort studies of mortality. Per 0.05-unit increase in the Gini coefficient, a measure of income inequality, the ORs and RRs (95% confidence intervals) for SRH and mortality were 1.06 (1.03-1.08) and 1.02 (1.00-1.04), respectively. A total of 63.2% of SRH and 50.0% of mortality studies were at serious risk of bias (RoB), resulting in very low and low certainty ratings, respectively. For SRH and mortality, we did not identify relevant evidence to assess the specificity or, for SRH only, the experiment BH viewpoints; evidence for strength of association and dose-response gradient was inconclusive because of the high RoB; we found evidence in support of temporality and plausibility.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Increased income inequality is only marginally associated with SRH and mortality, but the current evidence base is too methodologically limited to support a causal relationship. To address the gaps we identified, future research should focus on income inequality measured at the national level and addressing confounding with natural experiment approaches.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49810,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Milbank Quarterly\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"141-182\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10938942/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Milbank Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12689\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/31 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Milbank Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12689","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

政策要点 收入被认为会对一系列健康结果产生影响。然而,收入不平等(人口中收入分配的不平等程度)是否会对健康产生额外的影响却引起了广泛的争论。为了将收入不平等对健康的环境影响与个人收入对健康的影响区分开来,有必要进行使用多层次数据的研究,这种研究最近越来越受欢迎。我们的系统综述发现,收入不平等与自评健康不佳和全因死亡率之间只有很小的关联。现有证据并不表明存在因果关系,尽管这些证据在方法上仍然存在缺陷,而且数量有限,只有极少数研究采用了自然实验方法或在国家层面对收入不平等进行了研究:长期以来,人们一直在争论收入不平等是直接影响健康,还是仅仅因为个人收入的影响而产生关联。我们旨在了解收入不平等与自评健康(SRH)和全因死亡率(死亡率)之间的关系,并评估这些关系是否可能是因果关系:我们在 Medline、ISI Web of Science、Embase 和 EconLit(PROSPERO:CRD42021252791)中检索了有关收入不平等与 SRH 或死亡率的研究,这些研究使用了多层次数据,并对个人层面的社会经济地位进行了调整。我们通过随机效应荟萃分析计算了SRH不良的汇总几率比(ORs)和死亡率的相对风险比(RRs)。我们使用 "干预措施非随机研究中的偏倚风险 "工具对纳入的研究进行了严格评估。我们使用建议分级评估、发展和评价框架评估了证据的确定性,并使用布拉德福德-希尔(BH)观点评估了因果关系:主要荟萃分析包括 38 项评估性健康和生殖健康的横断面研究中的 2,916,576 名参与者,以及 14 项死亡率队列研究中的 10,727,470 名参与者。衡量收入不平等程度的基尼系数每增加 0.05 个单位,SRH 和死亡率的 ORs 和 RRs(95% 置信区间)分别为 1.06(1.03-1.08)和 1.02(1.00-1.04)。共有 63.2% 的 SRH 研究和 50.0% 的死亡率研究存在严重的偏倚风险 (RoB),分别导致极低和较低的确定性评级。在性健康与生殖健康和死亡率方面,我们没有找到相关证据来评估特异性,或者仅在性健康与生殖健康方面,没有找到相关证据来评估BH观点实验;由于RoB较高,关于关联强度和剂量-反应梯度的证据尚无定论;我们发现了支持时间性和可信性的证据:结论:收入不平等的加剧与性健康和生殖健康及死亡率的关系微乎其微,但目前的证据基础在方法上过于有限,无法支持因果关系。为了弥补我们发现的不足,未来的研究应侧重于在国家层面衡量收入不平等,并通过自然实验方法解决混淆问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Causal Assessment of Income Inequality on Self-Rated Health and All-Cause Mortality: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Policy Points Income is thought to impact a broad range of health outcomes. However, whether income inequality (how unequal the distribution of income is in a population) has an additional impact on health is extensively debated. Studies that use multilevel data, which have recently increased in popularity, are necessary to separate the contextual effects of income inequality on health from the effects of individual income on health. Our systematic review found only small associations between income inequality and poor self-rated health and all-cause mortality. The available evidence does not suggest causality, although it remains methodologically flawed and limited, with very few studies using natural experimental approaches or examining income inequality at the national level.

Context: Whether income inequality has a direct effect on health or is only associated because of the effect of individual income has long been debated. We aimed to understand the association between income inequality and self-rated health (SRH) and all-cause mortality (mortality) and assess if these relationships are likely to be causal.

Methods: We searched Medline, ISI Web of Science, Embase, and EconLit (PROSPERO: CRD42021252791) for studies considering income inequality and SRH or mortality using multilevel data and adjusting for individual-level socioeconomic position. We calculated pooled odds ratios (ORs) for poor SRH and relative risk ratios (RRs) for mortality from random-effects meta-analyses. We critically appraised included studies using the Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies - of Interventions tool. We assessed certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework and causality using Bradford Hill (BH) viewpoints.

Findings: The primary meta-analyses included 2,916,576 participants in 38 cross-sectional studies assessing SRH and 10,727,470 participants in 14 cohort studies of mortality. Per 0.05-unit increase in the Gini coefficient, a measure of income inequality, the ORs and RRs (95% confidence intervals) for SRH and mortality were 1.06 (1.03-1.08) and 1.02 (1.00-1.04), respectively. A total of 63.2% of SRH and 50.0% of mortality studies were at serious risk of bias (RoB), resulting in very low and low certainty ratings, respectively. For SRH and mortality, we did not identify relevant evidence to assess the specificity or, for SRH only, the experiment BH viewpoints; evidence for strength of association and dose-response gradient was inconclusive because of the high RoB; we found evidence in support of temporality and plausibility.

Conclusions: Increased income inequality is only marginally associated with SRH and mortality, but the current evidence base is too methodologically limited to support a causal relationship. To address the gaps we identified, future research should focus on income inequality measured at the national level and addressing confounding with natural experiment approaches.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Milbank Quarterly
Milbank Quarterly 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
9.60
自引率
3.00%
发文量
37
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Milbank Quarterly is devoted to scholarly analysis of significant issues in health and health care policy. It presents original research, policy analysis, and commentary from academics, clinicians, and policymakers. The in-depth, multidisciplinary approach of the journal permits contributors to explore fully the social origins of health in our society and to examine in detail the implications of different health policies. Topics addressed in The Milbank Quarterly include the impact of social factors on health, prevention, allocation of health care resources, legal and ethical issues in health policy, health and health care administration, and the organization and financing of health care.
期刊最新文献
When the Bough Breaks: The Financial Burden of Childbirth and Postpartum Care by Insurance Type. Launching Financial Incentives for Physician Groups to Improve Equity of Care by Patient Race and Ethnicity. Population Health Implications of Medicaid Prerelease and Transition Services for Incarcerated Populations. Overcoming the Impact of Students for Fair Admission v Harvard to Build a More Representative Health Care Workforce: Perspectives from Ending Unequal Treatment. A Mixed-Methods Exploration of the Implementation of Policies That Earmarked Taxes for Behavioral Health.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1