Skip to main content
Journal of Preventive Medicine and Hygiene logoLink to Journal of Preventive Medicine and Hygiene
. 2019 Dec 20;60(4):E300–E310. doi: 10.15167/2421-4248/jpmh2019.60.4.1257

Regional indices of socio-economic and health inequalities: a tool for public health programming

R LILLINI 1,, G MASANOTTI 2, F BIANCONI 2, A GILI 2, F STRACCI 2, F LA ROSA 2, M VERCELLI 3
PMCID: PMC6953449  PMID: 31967087

Summary

Objectives

The aim was to provide an affordable method of computing socio-economic (SE) deprivation indices at the regional level, in order to reveal the specific aspects of the relationship between SE inequalities and health outcomes. The Umbria Region Socio-Health Index (USHI) was computed and compared with the Italian National Deprivation Index at the Umbria regional level (NDI-U).

Methods

The USHI was computed by applying factor analysis to census tract SE variables correlated with general mortality and validated through comparison with the NDI-U.

Results

Overall mortality presented linear positive trends in USHI, while trends in NDI-U proved non-linear or non-significant. Similar results were obtained with regard to specific causes of death according to deprivation groups, gender and age.

Conclusions

The USHI better describes a local population in terms of health-related SE status. Policy-makers could therefore adopt this method in order to obtain a better picture of SE-associated health conditions in regional populations and to target strategies for reducing health inequalities.

Keywords: Public health, Socio-economic status, Socio-economic indices, Inequalities in health, Health care resources

Introduction

Over the last fifty years, most countries have investigated the relationships between socio-economic (SE) status and inequalities in the utilisation and distribution of healthcare resources and patient outcomes [1-6]. These studies have been carried out at the national or individual level, and have examined the relationships between the distribution of demographic characteristics (gender and age), SE factors (income and occupation), cultural factors (educational level), living conditions (marital status, household composition, domestic overcrowding and tenure, etc.) and health outcomes in areas ranging from the macro to the micro level [5, 6]. Indeed, an SE classification that takes the patient’s neighbourhood into account provides a useful starting point in describing and improving the effectiveness of local public health interventions [4, 6].

The definition of “neighbourhood” is debated in the literature, the most common being that of the smallest official administrative area [5-9], usually the census tract (CT), which approximates the SE and health features of the area to the resident individuals’ characteristics.

This choice is justified by the aim of such studies, which is to accurately assess the feasibility of providing preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic services targeted to individuals who live in a specific area.

Most of these studies have utilised indices of SE deprivation that were computed for the whole nation [6, 7]. Moreover, it is noteworthy that such indices were commonly constructed in order to describe the distribution of the population with respect to SE characteristics, but not to show the specific effects of SE deprivation on deprivation-related health outcomes.

This methodological choice raises some critical problems. Firstly, these indices are often not sufficiently related to overall mortality, the main and most commonly used health indicator. Worldwide, overall mortality is related to material and social differences in the population and to inequalities in the distribution of public and private health resources [10]. Computed according to this “pure” definition of SE deprivation, the usual deprivation indices do not consider whether their constituent variables influence health status [6, 7]. They therefore risk neglecting to evaluate differences in the local allocation of resources in response to health needs. These differences can be particularly marked in countries with large differences in national and regional demographics and SE status, causing considerable disparities in health outcomes [5].

Significant examples of such situations can be found in Italy, a country where population density varies from region to region, ranging from 39 to 429 inhabitants per square km. Moreover, the various regions differ in terms of the rate of population ageing, proportion of the population that is active, birth rate, family size, and labour market characteristics, particularly from North to South [11]. In addition, the orographic characteristics of the territory in the various regions impacts on the internal distribution of goods and wealth. In brief, the economy of Northern Italy is similar to, and connected with, that of Central Europe, while the Central and Southern regions of Italy are penalised by their poor connection with the heart of Europe.

It is also necessary to consider how public financing is distributed. With few exceptions, funds flow from the central government to the single regional authorities, which decide how they should be allocated and determine the amount and distribution of resources devoted to socio-health policies (social support, preventive measures, etc.) [11-14].

In countries with such characteristics, all these aspects lead to health inequalities that are specific to each region, and particularly to sub-areas where population density is lower [5]. These inequalities can be accurately described and analysed only by means of indicators that are constructed at the regional level and which can take local peculiarities into account [5-7]. Such indicators are computed on the basis of health-related local demographic and SE indicators [9, 12]. These indices should be called Indices of SE and Health Inequalities (SHI), rather than Deprivation Indices, as they describe the population distribution not only in terms of mere SE inequalities, but also according to people’s needs for health support.

The present study aimed to describe, discuss and validate the method and the technique for computing this kind of index, which could be applied in every nation affected by marked regional differences. The Umbria region was chosen as an example of the application of these procedures, which are derived from a previous successful attempt in another Italian region (Liguria) [8, 9, 12]. Moreover, this study assessed the ability of the Umbria regional index (USHI) to efficiently classify population subgroups in Umbria on the basis of a combination of health fragility and SE differences related to health outcomes, in comparison with the Italian National Deprivation Index (NDI) computed at the level of the Umbria region (NDI-U), which distinguishes populations only on the basis of SE status [7-9, 12].

Methods

The NDI is the benchmark for validating local indices (USHI in this study). As the NDI based on the 2011 National Census data is not yet available, we used local SE and mortality data from around 2001 (the date of the latest available NDI) in order to compute the local index (USHI), and mortality data from the period 2005-2012 to analyse the performance of the two indices.

We used 543 variables taken from the 2001 Italian Census in order to compute the two indices at the CT level; these variables describe features of individuals (age, marital status, educational level, employment, etc.), families (number of family members, single parents, average age of families, etc.) and households (ownership, over-crowding, housing conditions, services available, etc.).

The NDI considered 280 of these variables, covering five conditions which described the multidimensional concept of social and material deprivation (persons with only primary education, unemployed or searching for first employment, one-parent families and dependent children living together, rented accommodation, domestic overcrowding) [7]. The NDI was computed at the CT level as the sum of these five indicators in standardised form, grouped in population quintiles at the national level [7]. In the present study, we used a regional version of the NDI (NDI-U), categorised in quintiles of the Umbrian population.

To construct the USHI, we adopted the same method used to compute the Liguria Socio-economic and Health Inequalities Index (LSHI) [8]. Pearson’s bivariate correlation (p < 0.05) was calculated between each of the 543 basic variables and the synthetic SE indices (employment/unemployment rates, ageing index, dependence rate, etc.) and general mortality in Umbria in 2001-2004. Significantly correlated variables were picked out and a tolerance test (p < 0.05) was applied to these in order to reduce collinearity [15]. From the nine variables which emerged after these steps, a principal-component analysis extracted three factors. These defined the latent structure connecting the SE variables that were able to synthetically describe the health-related SE characteristics of the population. The three factors underwent a varimax rotation, in order to render them orthogonal, and thus independent. These three independent factors were linearly combined into a single quantitative variable, the values of which were re-scaled as a percentage in order to obtain the USHI at the CT level [16] (Tab. I). Subsequently this variable was aggregated, both for the purpose of its validation and to obtain a municipality index, based on the CTs in each municipality (Tab. SI). This operation was necessary because the population of the Umbria region is small (825,796 inhabitants); therefore, a higher level of aggregation (municipality) than the CT was required in order to analyse the effects of deprivation on mortality according to the causes of death. The population of the largest municipalities (above 55,000 residents) were split into districts, on the basis of CT proximity, in order to create geographic areas with populations similar in size to those of other municipalities in the region.

Tab. I.

Composition of the factors making up the USHI.

Total explained variance = 71.0%
Factor 1= 30.7% Factor 2= 23.0% Factor 3 = 18.3%
% of owned houses Youth employment rate % of singles
% of houses with independent heating system % of high school diplomas and university degrees Employment rate
Number of persons in the family Average age of 3-person families
% of people born in the municipality of residence

Tab. SI.

Municipalities and sub-municipalities, by SE deprivation group and USHI value.

Very high deprivation High deprivation Medium deprivation Low deprivation Very low deprivation
Municipality/Sub-municipality USHI value Municipality/Sub-municipality USHI value Municipality/Sub-municipality USHI value Municipality/Sub-municipality USHI value Municipality/Sub-municipality USHI value
Poggiodomo 0.02 Foligno 2 61.87 Foligno 1 68.01 Perugia 4 78.25 Avigliano Umbro 83.02
Polino 39.04 Narni 61.94 Perugia 5 68.10 Campello sul Clitunno 78.42 Cannara 83.27
Foligno 3 42.75 Arrone 62.75 Todi 68.46 Perugia 2 78.73 Montefalco 83.28
Terni 5 45.42 Nocera Umbra 62.82 Tuoro sul Trasimeno 69.22 Porano 78.86 Spello 83.66
Preci 49.21 Montefranco 63.42 Paciano 69.31 Gualdo Cattaneo 79.28 Fratta Todina 85.33
Terni 4 51.32 Otricoli 63.71 Cascia 69.50 Montecastrilli 79.64 Magione 85.87
Parrano 53.36 Guardea 63.74 Alviano 69.95 Fossato di Vico 80.09 Bevagna 85.89
Terni 3 54.95 Ficulle 64.10 Perugia 6 70.71 Piegaro 80.19 Perugia 1 86.53
Calvi dell’Umbria 55.53 Montecchio 64.35 Attigliano 71.15 Marsciano 80.32 Sigillo 86.58
Penna in Teverina 56.36 Orvieto 65.33 Gubbio 71.30 San Venanzo 80.34 Montone 87.43
Monteleone d’Orvieto 56.37 Amelia 65.83 Allerona 71.40 Città di Castello 80.61 Trevi 88.60
Vallo di Nera 56.59 Ferentillo 65.85 Sant’Anatolia di Narco 71.66 Collazzone 81.23 San Giustino 90.92
Sellano 56.70 Gualdo Tadino 66.03 Pietralunga 72.20 Valtopina 81.81 Monte Santa Maria Tiberina 92.12
Terni 2 57.65 Città della Pieve 66.14 Lisciano Niccone 72.65 Panicale 82.01 Deruta 92.94
Perugia 7 59.37 Giove 66.19 Lugnano in Teverina 73.23 Giano dell’Umbria 82.05 Torgiano 94.51
Terni 1 59.59 Castiglione del Lago 66.64 Castel Viscardo 73.38 Valfabbrica 82.16 Bettona 95.16
Stroncone 60.46 Scheggino 66.98 Fabro 73.88 Castel Ritaldi 82.63 Bastia 95.89
Monteleone di Spoleto 60.53 Norcia 67.15 Passignano sul Trasimeno 74.46 Assisi 82.69 Corciano 95.89
Montegabbione 60.58 Spoleto 67.21 Costacciaro 74.62 Citerna 99.98
Castel Giorgio 61.61 Cerreto di Spoleto 67.24 San Gemini 74.64
Baschi 67.59 Massa Martana 74.70
Acquasparta 67.88 Perugia 3 74.76
Umbertide 75.30
Scheggia e Pascelupo 76.44
Monte Castello di Vibio 77.40

Finally, in order to obtain a normal distribution of the population across the deprivation clusters in the final USHI classification [9, 17], a cluster discriminant analysis, based on the algorithm of Agnelli et al. [17], was applied on aggregating municipalities and districts. The level of normalization was tested at p < 0.05 statistical significance.

The Umbria Regional Mortality Registry was the source of the 5-year general mortality (2001-2004) data used in selecting the variables pertaining to the USHI. The same Registry also provided the data on cause-specific mortality by age-group and gender (2005-2012), which were utilised to validate the USHI and compare its performances with those of the NDI-U.

The mortality features included in the present study were: the overall mortality rate (ICD-10th: A00-Y89) and the rates of mortality due to diabetes mellitus (E10-E14), circulatory system (I00-I99), respiratory (J00-J99) and digestive (K00-K93) diseases in the period 2005-2012, by age-group (all ages, 0-64 and 65+ years old) and gender.

The Standard Mortality Ratio (SMR) of each group identified by the USHI and the NDI-U was computed against the overall regional rate, by age-group, gender and cause.

SMR variance was analysed with regard to the specific causes of death, in order to detect linear (L) or non-linear (NL) significant relationships with the deprivation groups. Significance was tested by means of the F-test (p < 0.05). Analyses were performed by means of SPSS 19.0 and Stata 12.0 statistical packages.

Results

Table II displays the size of the Umbrian population and the percentages of this population in each group identified by the NDI-U and USHI; it also shows trend comparisons of some synthetic SE indices (replacement, age, structural dependence, activity, employment and unemployment). The groups were labelled from 1 to 5, on the basis of decreasing SE deprivation according to the NDI-U and decreasing socio-health-economic (SHE) deprivation according to the USHI (i.e., 1 = most deprived; 5 = least deprived).

Tab. II.

Population size and percentage of total population (825,796 inhabitants) of SE deprivation groups identified by the NDI-U and USHI. Comparison of trends between distributions of some synthetic SES indices (ISTAT) in the NDI-U and USHI population groups.

SE deprivation groups 1 2 3 4 5 Trend
NDI-U N° of residents
(%)
156,473 (19.0%) 175,700 (21.3%) 176,965 (21.4%) 157,574 (19.1%) 159,084 (19.3%)
Replacement Index 147.3 132.4 141.8 150.2 151.5 n.s.
Ageing Index 246.7 198.9 203.4 209.2 229.5 n.s.
Structural dependence Index 59.2 57.7 58.1 57.9 61.4 n.s.
Activity Index 63.8 64.9 64.6 64.3 64.0 n.s.
Employment index 57.6 59.0 58.2 57.7 57.1 n.s.
Unemployment index 9.2 8.4 9.3 9.7 10.2 p < 0.05 NL
SHE deprivation groups 1 2 3 4 5 Trend
USHI N° of residents
(%)
162,196
(19.6%)
176,275
(21.3%)
188,458
(22.8%)
163,401
(19.8%)
135,466
(16.4%)
Replacement Index 177.4 149.7 139.5 132.9 127.9 p < 0.05 L↑
Ageing Index 332.2 217.3 209.6 182.4 168.6 p < 0.05 L↑
Structural dependence Index 68.0 59.8 58.8 54.8 53.5 p < 0.05 L↑
Activity Index 61.4 62.8 63.9 66.2 67.4 p < 0.05 L↓
Employment index 54.5 55.9 57.6 59.8 61.9 p < 0.05 L↓
Unemployment index 10.7 10.4 9.3 9.0 7.6 p < 0.05 L↑

SE group labels indicate decreasing SE deprivation from 1 = most deprived to 5 = least deprived; SHE group labels indicate decreasing SHE deprivation from 1 = most deprived to 5 = least deprived. L = linear trend; NL = non-linear trend; n.s. = non-significant trend; ↑ = positive trend (increasing with deprivation); ↓ = negative trend (decreasing with deprivation).

Each of the five NDI-U deprivation groups comprised approximately one-fifth of the Umbrian population, according to the NDI computing techniques. The small differences from perfect quintiles were due to the sizes of the CT populations (obviously, the CTs cannot be divided).

In each USHI deprivation group, the population size was normally distributed, being larger in the central groups and smaller in the tails.

With respect to USHI distribution, all synthetic indices showed linear (L) trends that were consistent with SHE deprivation. Positive L trends (↑, increasing on increasing deprivation) were seen with regard to replacement, ageing, structural and unemployment indices, while activity and employment indices displayed negative L trends (↓, decreasing on increasing deprivation).

In the NDI-U, no significant (NS) correlation was found, except for the unemployment index, which showed a NL relationship.

USHI overall mortality trends (Tab. III) showed L↑ trends in males and females, while NDI-U trends were NL in men and NS in women. Concerning age, the USHI trend was L↑ in the younger age-groups and in older females, but NL in older males. NDI-U age-related trends were NL among males in both age-groups and NS among females.

Tab. III.

2005-2012 ove rall mortality in Umbria by gender, age and deprivation groups identified by NDI-U and USHI: Standard Mortality Ratios (SMR), cases and trend significance.

Indexes Age groups Indi-cator MEN WOMEN
1 2 3 4 5 Umbria Trend 1 2 3 4 5 Umbria Trend
NDI-U All ages SMR 97.9 96.7 98.0 103.4 99.9 99.1 P
<0.05
NL
99.6 96.5 97.8 101.1 100.5 99.0 n.s.
OBS 7245 8389 7919 7446 7764 38763 7685 8445 8202 7620 7941 39893
0-64 yrs SMR 95.0 95.5 98.1 102.2 104.6 99.0 P
< 0.05
NL
103.7 90.7 100.2 98.5 99.9 98.5 n.s.
OBS 968 1082 1129 1088 1033 5300 590 566 649 579 543 2927
65+ yrs SMR 98.3 96.8 98.0 103.7 99.2 99.1 P
< 0.05
NL
99.3 96.9 97.5 101.4 100.5 99.1 n.s.
OBS 6277 7307 6790 6358 6731 33463 7095 7879 7553 7041 7398 36966
USHI All ages SMR 102.7 101.9 99.8 99.1 98.7 99.1 P
< 0.05
L↑
103.1 101.7 99.6 99.5 97.6 99.0 P
< 0.05
L↑
OBS 7998 9011 8386 7244 6124 38763 8669 9359 8680 7364 5821 39893
0-64 yrs SMR 108.8 105.4 96.6 95.0 95.6 99.0 P
< 0.05
L↑
105.7 100.5 93.7 94.7 93.0 99.5 P
< 0.05
L↑
OBS 1062 1195 1143 1013 887 5300 641 623 618 551 494 2927
65+ yrs SMR 99.4 101.4 94.9 99.8 100.4 99.1 P
< 0.05
NL
101.3 101.8 99.9 99.9 97.6 99.1 P
< 0.05
L↑
OBS 6936 7816 7243 6231 5237 33463 8028 8736 8062 6813 5327 36966

SE group labels indicate decreasing SE deprivation from 1 = most deprived to 5 = least deprived; SHE group labels indicate decreasing SHE deprivation from 1 = most deprived to 5 = least deprived. L = linear trend; NL = non-linear trend; n.s. = non-significant trend; ↑ = positive trend (increasing from 1 to 5 group); ↓ = negative trend (decreasing from 1 to 5 group).

The distribution of the main causes of death, by SE (NDI-U) and SHE (USHI) groups, is shown in Table IV. The USHI trends in diabetes-related deaths were L↑ in women and NL in men, while the NDI-U trends were NS. By age-group, the USHI trends were L↑ only in the elderly, being NS in the young. The NDI-U trends were NS in males in both age-groups, and NL in younger women.

Tab. IV.

2005-2012 mortality in Umbria, by cause, gender, age and deprivation groups identified by NDI-U and USHI: Standard Mortality Ratios (SMR), cases and trend significance.

CAUSE INDICES AGE GROUPS INDICATOR MEN WOMEN
1 2 3 4 5 Umbria Trend 1 2 3 4 5 Umbria Trend
DIABETES NDI-U All ages SMR 100.0 99.1 102.2 89.8 105.7 99.5 n.s. 100.4 93.8 98.0 106.7 98.8 99.3 n.s.
OBS 140 163 156 122 156 737 194 206 205 200 196 1001
0-64 yrs SMR 130.2 75.7 121.5 93.3 79.7 100.0 n.s. 116.7 70.5 51.4 207.9 60.6 100.4 p < 0.05
NL
OBS 20 13 21 15 12 81 6 4 3 11 3 27
65+ yrs SMR 96.3 101.8 99.8 89.4 108.7 99.5 n.s. 100.0 94.4 99.3 103.7 99.7 99.3 n.s.
OBS 120 150 135 107 144 656 188 202 202 189 193 974
USHI All ages SMR 109.3 125.8 89.9 70.3 77.4 99.5 p < 0.05
NL
117.1 101.5 90.4 81.3 86.0 99.3 p < 0.05
L↑
OBS 166 211 150 97 113 737 255 235 204 150 157 1001
0-64 yrs SMR 99.9 121.3 106.6 75.3 93.7 100.0 n.s. 143.9 123.5 50.7 57.6 132.5 100.4 n.s.
OBS 16 21 19 12 13 81 8 7 3 3 6 27
65+ yrs SMR 110.4 126.3 87.9 69.6 68.9 99.5 p < 0.05
L↑
116.4 100.9 91.4 82.0 105.2 99.3 p < 0.05
L↑
OBS 150 190 131 85 100 656 247 228 201 147 151 974
CIRCULATORY SYSTEM DISEASES NDI-U All ages SMR 97.3 98.2 98.4 102.8 98.7 99.0 p < 0.05
NL
99.8 96.8 96.0 101.4 101.1 98.9 n.s.
OBS 2683 3197 2949 2734 2874 14437 3488 3844 3634 3443 3626 18035
0-64 yrs SMR 99.3 100.2 104.0 91.6 100.2 99.1 p < 0.05
NL
94.5 97.4 102.1 92.6 111.4 99.5 n.s.
OBS 240 270 283 232 236 1261 75 85 92 76 85 413
65+ yrs SMR 97.1 98.0 97.9 104.0 98.6 99.0 p < 0.05
NL
99.9 96.8 95.8 101.6 100.9 98.9 n.s.
OBS 2443 2927 2666 2502 2638 13176 2070 3967 4677 4535 2373 17622
USHI All ages SMR 97.8 99.4 95.6 100.4 103.4 99.0 p < 0.05
L↓
99.6 100.6 93.7 99.7 102.4 98.9 p < 0.05
NL
OBS 2951 3303 3143 2711 2329 14437 3951 4225 3834 3309 2716 18035
0-64 yrs SMR 101.9 105.9 101.2 89.5 95.9 99.1 p < 0.05
L↑
108.4 108.0 90.3 84.3 107.7 99.5 p < 0.05
NL
OBS 254 287 284 226 210 1261 93 94 83 68 75 413
65+ yrs SMR 97.5 98.8 95.1 101.5 104.2 99.0 p < 0.05
L↓
99.4 100.4 93.8 100.0 102.3 98.9 p < 0.05
NL
OBS 2697 3016 2859 2485 2119 13176 3858 4131 3751 3241 2641 17622
RESPIRATORY DISEASES NDI-U All ages SMR 103.5 92.7 89.5 107.9 103.3 98.9 n.s. 122.9 108.1 94.2 104.6 107.0 106.9 n.s.
OBS 707 751 662 704 748 3572 588 501 536 517 571 2713
0-64 yrs SMR 125.9 65.1 67.4 120.2 125.6 99.3 n.s. 94.0 91.6 117.5 103.8 90.9 100.0 n.s.
OBS 33 19 20 33 32 137 14 15 20 16 13 78
65+ yrs SMR 102.6 93.7 90.4 107.3 102.4 98.9 n.s. 123.8 108.7 93.4 104.7 107.4 107.1 n.s.
OBS 674 732 642 671 716 3435 574 486 516 501 558 2635
USHI All ages SMR 96.5 103.7 89.8 101.0 106.1 98.9 p < 0.05
NL
105.3 123.6 102.0 95.7 109.2 102.9 p < 0.05
NL
OBS 721 858 733 672 588 3572 619 626 616 467 385 2713
0-64 yrs SMR 114.5 78.6 88.9 98.5 121.5 99.3 p < 0.05
NL
118.1 116.5 80.9 79.2 106.5 100.0 n.s.
OBS 31 23 27 27 29 137 19 19 14 12 14 78
65+ yrs SMR 95.8 104.6 89.9 101.1 105.4 98.9 p < 0.05
NL
105.0 123.8 102.7 96.2 109.3 101.1 p < 0.05
NL
OBS 690 835 706 645 559 3435 600 607 602 455 371 2635
DIGESTIVE DISEASES NDI-U All ages SMR 98.0 97.5 90.3 109.4 102.3 99.3 n.s. 85.8 100.0 103.8 111.0 95.4 99.2 p < 0.05
NL
OBS 251 292 253 274 275 1345 226 299 297 285 258 1365
0-64 yrs SMR 88.7 97.7 76.6 93.4 143.3 99.1 n.s. 110.9 127.0 36.7 94.2 124.1 97.2 n.s.
OBS 40 49 39 44 63 235 16 20 6 14 17 73
65+ yrs SMR 99.9 97.5 93.4 113.1 94.3 99.3 p < 0.05
NL
84.4 98.5 107.9 112.0 93.9 99.3 p < 0.05
NL
OBS 211 243 214 230 212 1110 210 279 291 271 241 1292
USHI All ages SMR 125.8 118.0 89.5 87.7 82.0 99.3 p < 0.05
L↑
115.1 106.2 85.4 100.8 84.3 99.2 p < 0.05
L↑
OBS 292 360 273 223 197 1345 341 334 263 255 172 1365
0-64 yrs SMR 120.8 144.7 86.0 53.1 88.0 99.1 p < 0.05
L↑
111.0 95.4 102.1 115.6 55.2 99.2 n.s.
OBS 56 73 45 25 36 235 17 15 17 17 7 73
65+ yrs SMR 102.7 112.7 90.2 95.5 92.9 99.3 p < 0.05
NL
115.4 106.7 84.5 99.8 86.3 99.3 p < 0.05
L↑
OBS 236 287 228 198 161 1110 324 319 246 238 165 1292

SE group labels indicate decreasing SE deprivation from 1 = most deprived to 5 = least deprived; SHE groups label indicate decreasing SHE deprivation from 1 = most deprived to 5 = least deprived. L = linear trend; NL = non-linear trend; n.s. = non-significant trend; ↑ = positive trend (increasing from groups 1 to 5); ↓= negative trend (decreasing from groups 1 to 5).

Regarding circulatory system diseases, USHI trends were L↓ in men and NL in women, While NDI-U trends were NL in men and NS in women. Concerning age-groups, USHI trends were L↑ in younger men, L↓ in older men and NL in both female age-groups. NDI-U displayed NL trends in males and NS in females.

Respiratory system diseases showed NL USHI trends in both sexes, while NDI-U trends were NS. Age-related USHI trends were NL in both groups of men and NS in younger women. All the age-related NDI-U trends were NS.

Finally, with regard to diseases of the digestive system, USHI trends were L↑, while NDI-U trends were NS in men and NL in women. When linked to age, USHI trends were L↑ in younger men and older women, NL in older men and NS in younger women. NDI-U trends were NL in older subjects and NS in the younger groups.

Discussion

Tables II and III show very marked differences between the two indices in terms of their relationships with the synthetic SE indicators (Tab. II) and the distribution of overall mortality across the SE groups of population (Tab. III). The NDI-U displayed only a weak correlation with mortality (the health indicator), confirming the findings at the national level [7]; moreover, correlations with the SE indicators were either non-significant or non-linear. These results confirmed those of other studies, particularly the Liguria study [12] and a national one, involving 10 other Italian regions [18, 19].

The NDI is a commonly accepted benchmark at the national level. However, if the same procedures are applied at the local level in order to obtain a local version of this index, and if the same variables and population segmentation (quintiles) are used, its ability to distinguish population groups in terms of SE and health differences seems to be weakened.

Although the NDI-U groups were formed by quintiles, SE phenomena more frequently display a normal distribution (as do many other phenomena: e.g., many health-related indicators) [20, 21]. Thus, the USHI was constructed in accordance with a normal distribution of the population in clusters, in order to maximise the probability of relationships with SE characteristics. The validity and reliability of this methodological choice are demonstrated by the linear correlations that the synthetic SE indicators (replacement, ageing, dependence rate, activity, and employment) showed (linear correlations in USHI, but not in NDI-U).

Furthermore, only USHI trends in overall mortality almost always confirmed other reports [1-4, 22]. USHI age-trends illustrated the effects of inequalities on overall mortality, revealing that SMRs increased with SHE deprivation in both female age-groups and in younger males. The NDI-U failed to draw out this information or to identify the well-known relationship between SE deprivation and the major causes of death explored in this study (Tab. IV).

USHI trends depicted female-related advantages (e.g., greater attention to prevention) and disadvantages (e.g., greater ageing and disability) [23-25], suggesting a strong relationship with confounding factors in older men, such as deleterious habits and occupational risks.

Regarding specific causes of death (Tab. IV), the associations observed in the younger age-groups were interesting, in that the low frequency of competitive diseases made it easier to identify determinants of risk, and also SE-linked factors. Indeed, younger age-groups tend to be more receptive to campaigns for the prevention and early diagnosis of diseases. Such campaigns facilitate a timely diagnosis and are associated with more efficacious treatments and better care and outcomes, though their effects may differ across SHE clusters [14, 23, 24].

Their effects may differ in the intensity of exposure to risk factors (such as occupational exposure in older men) or to differences in implementing preventive or diagnostic/therapeutic strategies. For instance, women are known to be more likely to display beneficial behavioural patterns, such as adopting healthy dietary habits and adhering to early prevention [23, 24]. However, this predisposition is mostly culturally mediated, being greater in the less deprived than in the more deprived [25].

With regard to the main diseases, the trends which emerged from the present study mainly confirmed the findings from other studies. The more lethal diseases, for which less efficacious preventive and therapeutic options are available, showed a more homogeneous distribution of mortality among the population clusters, because, although exposure to risk factors was not similar in all individuals, care opportunities were limited in the same way for all. Conversely, when preventive and therapeutic options are available, mortality rates differ among clusters of population at different SHE deprivation levels [12, 26, 27]. Specifically, the literature indicates that ageing-linked social challenges and poor healthcare are mediated by SE differences, and that they are worse in one-person families, particularly in the elderly [26, 27].

The growing prevalence of diabetes in populations with a western life-style [28-31] has shown robust positive associations with SE deprivation in both males and females [28]. The main risk factors, i.e. overweight or obesity and inheritance of the disease from parents, suggest a common environment or gene-environment interaction and SE deprivation. These factors, however, can be partially counterbalanced by better education and the adoption of a healthier lifestyle). Moreover, diabetes is reported to increase the individual’s vulnerability to airborne particles emitted by the combustion of hydrocarbons, and an inverse relationship has emerged between air pollution and nitro-glycerin-mediated reactivity in older people [29, 30]. These detrimental effects might affect the population differentially across SHE groups, as suggested by the positive trends seen in elderly persons of both sexes in Umbria.

Cardiovascular diseases are associated with lifestyle (smoking, alcohol, metabolic disorders, scant physical activity, overweight and obesity, pollution exposure) in all SE groups [29-34]. In Italy, smoking has decreased among young males, although to a lesser extent in the most deprived [35]. Among Italian women, smoking started at a later date, but spread rapidly from the most privileged to the other SE groups [35]. As yet, there are only a few signs of a decline in female smokers [36]. Umbria has the third highest smoking prevalence in Italy [36], which might partially account for the very high differences in risks between younger and older men across SHE groups and the non-linear trend in women.

Health campaigns and corrective actions on diet [38, 39] have had an effect in Italy, but SE differences still penalise the most deprived. The association between unhealthy eating and low SE status seen in the most deprived population strata in Umbria could be linked to the consumption of a traditional diet, which is rich in red meat and processed meat, even in the less deprived population strata [40].

The association between air pollution, particularly that caused by ultrafine particles, and low SE condition [41, 42] impacts on cardiovascular diseases. These particles reach cardiovascular sites, cause systemic inflammation in response to oxidative stress and promote the progression of atherosclerosis. In Umbria, this association emerged in urban areas with an industrial background (i.e., the town of Terni), while rural areas of the region appeared to be less affected.

Most deaths caused by diseases of the respiratory system are due to chronic-obstructive pulmonary diseases [43, 44], which affect the deprived more than the other groups. Although smoking is one of the main causes, significant roles are attributed to occupational exposure and air pollution. The present findings in Umbria only partially confirmed the positive association observed elsewhere in deprived people [43-46]. Lifestyle differences (rural/urban) could be partly responsible for these differences. Moreover, we recorded a few deaths attributable to pneumoconiosis, probably occupation-related, involving asbestos- and silica-processing workers [47]. This type of exposure mainly affects the most deprived groups of population [48], and indeed, this situation was observed in the Umbrian province of Terni, where a large steel-mill is located.

Finally, diseases of the digestive system are positively associated with SHE deprivation [49-51]. Indeed, cirrhosis, ulcers, diverticulitis and inflammatory bowel disease are usually associated with low SE status; this is due more to delays in diagnosis and therapy than to greater exposure to risk factors [51]. USHI trends only partially confirmed the literature, with NL trends in males and females in all age-groups.

The above considerations seem to support the validation of USHI as an indicator of socio-economic and health-related inequalities.

A limit of USHI is that it cannot be considered a mere deprivation index. Indeed, as it is intended specifically to assess SE and health inequalities, overall mortality is one of its constituent variables. Therefore, it cannot be used to describe SE differences in a population, but only the SE differences tied to the health condition. Thus, although it is very useful for public health purposes, it cannot substitute a deprivation index for general purposes.

A second limit appears to be the local characterisation of the indices computed by means of this method, as the SHE descriptors may differ from area to area. In reality, however, given that the local indices are constructed according to the same method, they express the same conceptual definition of SHE deprivation even though they consider different SHE descriptors.

Instead, sharing the same method in order to identify SHE deprivation groups, even if they consider different SHE descriptors, they express the same conceptual definition of SHE deprivation. Therefore, similar segments of population in the different regions could be pooled, because they identify the same SHE differences and needs in people pertaining to different areas. At the European level, an analogous approach was adopted in the construction of the European Deprivation Index [52].

Conclusions

By connecting SE findings with some explanations of health conditions described in the literature, the present study confirms that the construction of regional indices of SHE inequalities allows us to formulate specific hypotheses regarding the reasons behind health outcomes in a population and, consequently, to make suggestions concerning the corrective actions to undertake.

Our aim was to provide a valid and reliable method of computing SE and health inequality-related indices at the regional level, in order to better analyse the specific elements associated with the health condition of the population.

The present findings demonstrated that the USHI better represented the association between health and inequalities, and may provide a useful guide to the allocation of regional health resources.

In conclusion, regional indices computed in the same way as the USHI could be adopted elsewhere, in order to draw up specific strategies to reduce inequalities in health, thereby contributing to the sustainability of the health system and to the evaluation of the outcomes of the policies implemented.

Figures and tables

Acknowledgements

Funding sources: this research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Footnotes

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Authors’ contributions

RL: main author; research protocol, development of the analyses and author for paragraphs “Material and Methods” and “Results”.

GM: author for paragraphs “Introduction” and “Discussion”, linguistic revision.

FB: data provider and data quality check, contribution to methods and analysis.

AG: quality check for data analysis and results.

FS: contribution to paragraphs “Discussion” and “Conclusion”, text revision, availability of Umbria Region Cancer and Mortality Registries.

FLR: contribution to pargaragraphs “Introduction” and “Conclusion”, availability of Umbria Region Cancer and Mortality Registries.

MV: author of paragraph “Conclusion”, contribution to all paragraphs, coordination of the study.

References

  • [1].Mackenbach JP, Stirbu I, Roskam AJR, Schaap MM, Menvielle G, Leinsalu M, Kunst AE. European Union Working Group on Socioeconomic Inequalities in Health. Socioeconomic inequalities in health in 22 European countries. N Engl J Med 2008;358:2468-81. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa0707519 10.1056/NEJMsa0707519 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [2].Mackenbach JP, Kulhánová I, Bopp M, Deboosere P, Eikemo TA, Hoffmann R, Kulik MC, Leinsalu M, Martikainen P, Menvielle G, Regidor E, Wojtyniak B, Östergren O, Lundberg OEURO-GBD-SE Consortium. Variations in the relation between education and cause-specific mortality in 19 European populations: a test of the “fundamental causes” theory of social inequalities in health. Soc Sci Med 2015;127:51-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.05.021 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.05.021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [3].Gallo V, Mackenbach JP, Ezzati M, Menvielle G, Kunst AE, Rohrmann S, Kaaks R, Teucher B, Boeing H, Bergmann MM, Tjønneland A, Dalton SO, Overvad K, Redondo ML, Agudo A, Daponte A, Arriola L, Navarro C, Gurrea AB, Khaw KT, Wareham N, Key T, Naska A, Trichopoulou A, Trichopoulos D, Masala G, Panico S, Contiero P, Tumino R, Bueno-de-Mesquita HB, Siersema PD, Peeters PP, Zackrisson S, Almquist M, Eriksson S, Hallmans G, Skeie G, Braaten T, Lund E, Illner AK, Mouw T, Riboli E, Vineis P. Social inequalities and mortality in Europe--results from a large multi-national cohort. PLoS One 2012;7:e39013 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0039013 10.1371/journal.pone.0039013 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [4].Sommer I, Griebler U, Mahlknecht P, Thaler K, Bouskill K, Gartlehner G, Mendis S. Socioeconomic inequalities in non-communicable diseases and their risk factors: an overview of systematic reviews. BMC Public Health 2015;15:914 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-2227-y 10.1186/s12889-015-2227-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [5].Woods LM, Rachet B, Coleman MP. Choice of geographic unit influences socioeconomic inequalities in breast cancer survival. Br J Cancer 2005;92:1279-82. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6602506 10.1038/sj.bjc.6602506 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [6].Rey G, Jougla E, Fouillet A, Hémon D. Ecological association between a deprivation index and mortality in France over the period 1997-2001: variations with spatial scale, degree of urbanicity, age, gender and cause of death. BMC Public Health 2009;9:33-44. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-9-33 10.1186/1471-2458-9-33 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [7].Caranci N, Biggeri A, Grisotto L, Pacelli B, Spadea T, Costa G. L’indice di deprivazione italiano a livello di sezione di censimento: definizione, descrizione e associazione con la mortalità. [The Italian deprivation index at census block level: definition, description and association with general mortality]. Epidemiol Prev 2010;34:167-76. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [8].Lillini R, Quaglia A, Vercelli M. Costruzione di un indice di deprivazione per misurare lo stato di salute in Liguria. [Building of a local deprivation index to measure the health status in the Liguria region]. Epidemiol Prev 2012;36:180-7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [9].Vercelli M, Lillini R, Quaglia A; Registro Tumori Regione Liguria. Methods to study the deprivation and its relationships with cancer incidence in a local area. Metodi per lo studio della deprivazione e le sue relazioni con l’incidenza del cancro in un’area locale. CancerStat Umbria 2014;5:621-37. [Google Scholar]
  • [10].OECD/EU (2016), Health at a Glance: Europe 2016 – State of Health in the EU Cycle. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2016. Avalaible at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264265592-en 10.1787/9789264265592-en [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • [11].Costa G, Paci E, Ricciardi W. (eds.). Salute e sanità a 150 anni dall’unità d’Italia: più vicini o più lontani? [Health and public health in Italy after 150 years from unification: nearer or farther?]. Epidemiol Prev 2011;35(Supplement 2):1-134. [Google Scholar]
  • [12].Vercelli M, Lillini R, Quaglia A, Registro Tumori, Regione Liguria. Deprivation and cancer incidence in a de-industrialised and highly ageing area. [Deprivazione e incidenza di cancro in un’area ex-industriale a forte invecchiamento]. CancerStat Umbria 2014;5:638-61. [Google Scholar]
  • [13].Solar O, Irwin A. A conceptual framework for action on the social determinants of health. Social Determinants of Health Discussion. Paper 2 (Policy and Practice). Geneva: World Health Organization; 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • [14].Quaglia A Lillini R Mamo C Ivaldi E Vercelli M, SEIH (Socio-Economic Indicators and Health) Working Group . Socio-economic inequalities: a review of methodological issues and the relationships with cancer survival. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2013;85:266-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.critrevonc.2012.08.007 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2012.08.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [15].Tacq J. Multivariate Analysis Techniques in Social Research. London: Sage; 1997. [Google Scholar]
  • [16].Corbetta P, Gasperoni G, Pisati M. Statistica per la ricerca sociale [Statistics for Social Research]. Bologna: Il Mulino; 2001. [Google Scholar]
  • [17].Agnelli JP, Cadeiras M, Tabak EG, Turner CV, Vanden-Eijnden E. Clustering and classification through normalizing flows in feature space. Multiscale Model Simul 2010;8:1784-802. [Google Scholar]
  • [18].Panatto D, Gasparini R, Amicizia D. Influenza vaccination coverage in the elderly and socio-economic inequalities in Italy. J Prev Med Hyg 2019;59(4 Suppl 2):E1-E2. https://doi.org/10.15167/2421-4248/jpmh2018.59.4s2.1198 10.15167/2421-4248/jpmh2018.59.4s2.1198 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [19].Vercelli M, Lillini R, Arata L, Zangrillo F, Bagnasco A, Sasso L, Magliani A, Gasparini R, Amicizia D, Panatto D. Analysis of influenza vaccination coverage among the elderly in Genoa (Italy) based on a deprivation index, 2009-2013. J Prev Med Hyg 2019;59(4 Suppl 2):E11-E17. https://doi.org/10.15167/2421-4248/jpmh2018.59.4s2.1171 10.15167/2421-4248/jpmh2018.59.4s2.1171 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [20].Goldthorpe JH. Sociology as a Population Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • [21].Kaneko K. Life: An introduction to complex systems biology. Berlin: Springer; 2006. [Google Scholar]
  • [22].Rogers RG, Everett BG, Onge JM, Krueger PM. Social, behavioural, and biological factors, and sex differences in mortality. Demography 2010;47:555-78. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [23].Auvinen A, Karjalainen S. Possible explanations for social class differences in cancer patient survival. Kogevinas M, Pearce N, Susser M, Boffetta P, eds. Social Inequalities and Cancer. IARC Scientific Publications No. 138:377-397. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 1997. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [24].Whitaker KL, Scott SE, Wardle J. Applying symptom appraisal models to understand sociodemographic differences in responses to possible cancer symptoms: a research agenda. Br J Cancer 2015;112:S27-S34. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2015.39 10.1038/bjc.2015.39 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [25].Douglas E, Wardle J, Massat NJ, Waller J. Colposcopy attendance and deprivation: A retrospective analysis of 27,193 women in the NHS Cervical Screening Programme. Br J Cancer 2015;113:119-22. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2015.176 10.1038/bjc.2015.176 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [26].Quaglia A, Lillini R, Casella C, Giachero G, Izzotti A, Vercelli M, Liguria Region Tumour Registry. The combined effect of age and socioeconomic status on breast cancer survival. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2011;77):210-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.critrevonc.2010.02.007 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2010.02.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [27].Manzoli L, Villari P, M Pirone G, Boccia A. Marital status and mortality in the elderly: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Soc Sci Med 2007;64:77-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.08.031 10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.08.031 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [28].Smith JP. Nature and causes of trends in male diabetes prevalence, undiagnosed diabetes, and the socioeconomic status health gradient. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2007;104:13225-31. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0611234104 10.1073/pnas.0611234104 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [29].Dubowsky SD, Suh H, Schwartz J, Coull BA, Gold DR. Diabetes, obesity, and hypertension may enhance associations between air pollution and markers of systemic inflammation. Environ Health Perspect 2006;114:992-8. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.8469 10.1289/ehp.8469 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [30].O’Neill MS, Veves A, Zanobetti A, Sarnat JA, Gold DR, Economides PA, Horton ES, Schwartz J. Diabetes enhances vulnerability to particulate air pollution-associated impairment in vascular reactivity and endothelial function. Circulation 2005;111:2913-20. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.104.517110 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.104.517110 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [31].Global Burden of Metabolic Risk Factors for Chronic Diseases Collaboration. Cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and diabetes mortality burden of cardiometabolic risk factors from 1980 to 2010: a comparative risk assessment. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2014;2:634-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-8587(14)70102-0 10.1016/S2213-8587(14)70102-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [32].Global Burden of Metabolic Risk Factors for Chronic Diseases Collaboration (BMI Mediated Effects) Lu Y, Hajifathalian K, Ezzati M, Woodward M, Rimm EB, Danaei G. Metabolic mediators of the effects of body-mass index, overweight, and obesity on coronary heart disease and stroke: a pooled analysis of 97 prospective cohorts with 1•8 million participants. Lancet 2014;383:970-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61836-X 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61836-X [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [33].Lantz PM, Golberstein E, House JS, Morenoff J. Socioeconomic and behavioral risk factors for mortality in a national 19-year prospective study of U.S. adults. Soc Sci Med 2010;70:1558-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.02.003 10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.02.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [34].Hemingway A. Determinants of coronary heart disease risk for women on a low income: literature review. J Adv Nurs 2007;60:359-67. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04418.x 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04418.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [35].Federico B, Kunst AE, Vannoni F, Damiani G, Costa G. Trends in educational inequalities in smoking in northern, mid and southern Italy, 1980-2000. Prev Med 2004;39:919-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2004.03.029 10.1016/j.ypmed.2004.03.029 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [36].Vercelli M, Quaglia A, Lillini R. Useful indicators to interpret the cancer burden in Italy. Tumori 2013;99:425-38. https://doi.org/10.1700/1334.14808 10.1700/1334.14808 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [37].ISTAT: Health for All - Italia. Rome, June 2015. Available at: http://www.istat.it/it/archivio/14562 (Accessed on 13 November 2015). [Google Scholar]
  • [38].Lock K, Pomerleau J, Causer L, Altmann DR, McKee M. The global burden of disease attributable to low consumption of fruit and vegetables: implications for the global strategy on diet. Bull World Health Organ 2005;83:100-8. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [39].Rees K, Hartley L, Flowers N, Clarke A, Hooper L, Thorogood M, Stranges S. ‘Mediterranean’ dietary pattern for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;(8):CD009825 https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009825.pub2 10.1002/14651858.CD009825.pub2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [40].Marra M, Migliardi A, Costa G. Disuguali a tavola, ma non troppo: le differenze sociali nell’alimentazione in Italia prima e durante la crisi [Health inequalities and nutrition in Italy during crisis times]. Epidemiol Prev 2015;39:322-31. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [41].Delfino RJ, Sioutas C, Malik S. Potential role of ultrafine particles in associations between airborne particle mass and cardiovascular health. Environ Health Perspect 2005;113:934-46. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.7938 10.1289/ehp.7938 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [42].Zanobetti A, Schwartz J. Particulate air pollution, progression, and survival after myocardial infarction. Environ Health Perspect 2007;115:769-75. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.9201 10.1289/ehp.9201 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [43].Wheeler A, Zanobetti A, Gold DR, Schwartz J, Stone P, Suh HH. The relationship between ambient air pollution and heart rate variability differs for individuals with heart and pulmonary disease. Environ Health Perspect 2006;114:560-6. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.8337 10.1289/ehp.8337 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [44].Beelen R, Raaschou-Nielsen O, Stafoggia M, Andersen ZJ, Weinmayr G, Hoffmann B, Wolf K, Samoli E, Fischer P, Nieuwenhuijsen M, Vineis P, Xun WW, Katsouyanni K, Dimakopoulou K, Oudin A, Forsberg B, Modig L, Havulinna AS, Lanki T, Turunen A, Oftedal B, Nystad W, Nafstad P, De Faire U, Pedersen NL, Östenson CG, Fratiglioni L, Penell J, Korek M, Pershagen G, Eriksen KT, Overvad K, Ellermann T, Eeftens M, Peeters PH, Meliefste K, Wang M, Bueno-de-Mesquita B, Sugiri D, Krämer U, Heinrich J, de Hoogh K, Key T, Peters A, Hampel R, Concin H, Nagel G, Ineichen A, Schaffner E, Probst-Hensch N, Künzli N, Schindler C, Schikowski T, Adam M, Phuleria H, Vilier A, Clavel-Chapelon F, Declercq C, Grioni S, Krogh V, Tsai MY, Ricceri F, Sacerdote C, Galassi C, Migliore E, Ranzi A, Cesaroni G, Badaloni C, Forastiere F, Tamayo I, Amiano P, Dorronsoro M, Katsoulis M, Trichopoulou A, Brunekreef B, Hoek G. Effects of long-term exposure to air pollution on natural-cause mortality: an analysis of 22 European cohorts within the multicentre ESCAPE project. Lancet 2014;383:785-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62158-3 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62158-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [45].Benmarhnia T, Oulhote Y, Petit C, Lapostolle A, Chauvin P, Zmirou-Navier D, Deguen S. Chronic air pollution and social deprivation as modifiers of the association between high temperature and daily mortality. Environ Health 2014;13:53 https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-069X-13-53 10.1186/1476-069X-13-53 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [46].Lin HH, Ezzati M, Murray M. Tobacco smoke, indoor air pollution and tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med, 2007;4:e20 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040020 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040020 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [47].Coggon D, Harris EC, Brown T, Rice S, Palmer KT. Work-related mortality in England and Wales, 1979-2000. Occup Environ Med 2010;67:816-822. https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.2009.052670 10.1136/oem.2009.052670 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [48].Brunt H, Barnes J, Jones SJ, Longhurst JW, Scally G, Hayes E. Air pollution, deprivation and health: understanding relationships to add value to local air quality management policy and practice in Wales, UK. J Public Health (Oxf), 2016. [Epub ahead of print]. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [49].Jepsen P, Vilstrup H, Andersen PK, Sørensen HT. Socioeconomic status and survival of cirrhosis patients: a Danish nationwide cohort study. BMC Gastroenterol 2009;9:35 https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-230X-9-35 10.1186/1471-230X-9-35 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [50].Sewell JL, Velayos FS. Systematic review: The role of race and socioeconomic factors on IBD healthcare delivery and effectiveness. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2013;19:627-43. https://doi.org/10.1002/ibd.22986 10.1002/ibd.22986 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [51].Csikesz NG, Singla A, Simons JP, Tseng JF, Shah SA. The impact of socioeconomic status on presentation and treatment of diverticular disease. J Gastrointest Surg 2009;13:1993-2002. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-009-1031-3 10.1007/s11605-009-1031-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [52].Guillaume E, Pornet C, Dejardin O, Launay L, Lillini R, Vercelli M, Marí-Dell’Olmo M, Fernández Fontelo A, Borrell C, Ribeiro AI, Pina MF, Mayer A, Delpierre C, Rachet B, Launoy G. Development of a cross-cultural deprivation index in five European countries. J Epidemiol Community Health 2016;70:493-9. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2015-205729 10.1136/jech-2015-205729 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Preventive Medicine and Hygiene are provided here courtesy of Pacini Editore

RESOURCES