Abstract
The public’s view on how poverty and health are related will influence support for different policies and programs. The purpose of this study was to examine public perceptions of the relationship between poverty and health and to identify demographic variables that predict support for the four explanations of the relationship between poverty and health (artifact, drift, behavioural, and structural) first identified in the Black Report in the United Kingdom. A telephone survey of a representative sample of Albertans (N=1,216) was conducted. The majority of respondents believed that poverty leads to poor health. The explanation that health is influenced by the context in which individuals live (structural) received the most support. Demographic variables (sex, age, education, occupation, income, residence, conservatism) explained less than 10% of the variance for each of the four explanations, with conservatism the most consistent predictor.
Résumé
l’opinion publique sur les liens qui existent entre la pauvreté et la santé influence le degré de soutien donné aux politiques et programmes gouvernementaux. Le but de cette étude était d’examiner les perceptions du public en ce qui a trait au lien entre la pauvreté et la santé et d’identifier les variables démographiques qui prédisent le soutien aux hypothèses proposées dans le rapport Black qui fut publié au Royaume-Uni. Un sondage téléphonique fut complété auprès d’un échantillon représentatif d’Albertains (N = 1 216). La majorité des répondants croient que la pauvreté conduit à une santé précaire. l’hypothèse selon laquelle la santé est influencée par le contexte dans lequel vivent les gens (hypothèse structurelle) a obtenu le plus grand soutien. Les variables démographiques (genre, age, éducation, occupation, revenu, résidence et conservatisme) expliquent moins de 10% de la variance pour chacune des quatres hypothèses. Le conservatisme est la variable prédicative la plus fidèle.
Footnotes
This research was supported in part by the Faculty of Nursing Internal Allocation Fund, University of Alberta; the Population Research Laboratory, Department of Sociology, University of Alberta; and the Alberta Public Health Association.
References
- 1.Canadian Public Health Association. Health Impacts of Social and Economic Conditions: Implications for Public Policy. Ottawa: CPHA; 1997. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Amick B, Levine S, Tarlov A. Society and Health. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1995. Cameron Walsh D. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Blackburn C. Poverty and Health: Working with Families. Philadelphia: Open University Press; 1991. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Evans B, Barer M, Marmor T, editors. Why Are Some People Healthy and Others Not? The Determinants of Health of Populations. New York: Aldine DeGruyter; 1994. [Google Scholar]
- 5.Whitehead M. Tackling inequalities: A review of policy initiatives. In: Benzeval M, Judge K, Whitehead M, editors. Tackling Inequalities in Health: An Agenda for Action. London: King’s Fund; 1995. pp. 22–52. [Google Scholar]
- 6.Epp J. Achieving Health for All: A Framework for Health Promotion. Ottawa: Health and Welfare Canada; 1986. [Google Scholar]
- 7.Federal, Provincial,Territorial Advisory Committee on Population Health. Report on the Health of Canadians. Ottawa: Health Canada; 1996. [Google Scholar]
- 8.National Forum on Health. Canada Health Action: Building on the Legacy. Ottawa: Public Works and Government Services; 1997. [Google Scholar]
- 9.Benzeval M, Judge K, Whitehead M. Introduction. In: Benzeval M, Judge K, Whitehead M, editors. Tackling Inequalities in Health: An Agenda for Action. London: King’s Fund; 1995. pp. 1–9. [Google Scholar]
- 10.Canadian Public Health Association. Action Statement for Health Promotion in Canada. Ottawa: Author; 1996. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Iyengar S. How citizens think about national issues: A matter of responsibility. Am J Political Science. 1989;33:878–900. doi: 10.2307/2111113. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Kluegel J. Macro-economic problems, beliefs about the poor and attitudes toward welfare spending. Soc Probl. 1987;34:82–99. doi: 10.2307/800731. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Kluegel JR, Smith ER. Beliefs about Inequality. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter; 1986. [Google Scholar]
- 14.Millar J. Healthy Public Policy Development—Science, Art, or Chance? Conference Proceedings. Saskatoon: Saskatchewan Provincial Health Council, Prairie Region Health Promotion Research Centre, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan; 1996. Public policy, health policy, healthy public policy: What’s the difference? pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- 15.Wilson G. Toward a revised framework for examining beliefs about the causes of poverty. The Sociological Quarterly. 1996;37:413–28. doi: 10.1111/j.1533-8525.1996.tb00746.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Naidoo J, Wills J. Health Promotion: Foundations for Practice. London: Bailliere Tindall; 1994. [Google Scholar]
- 17.Department of HealthSocial Security. Inequalities in Health: Report of a Research Working Group (The Black Report) London: Department of Health and Social Security; 1980. [Google Scholar]
- 18.Blane D. An assessment of the Black Report’s ‘explanations of health inequalities.’. Sociol Health Illn. 1985;7:423–45. doi: 10.1111/1467-9566.ep10832355. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Marmot M, Kogevinas M, Elston M. Social/economic status and disease. Annu Rev Public Health. 1987;8:111–35. doi: 10.1146/annurev.pu.08.050187.000551. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Wilkinson R. Unhealthy Societies: The Afflictions of Inequality. London: Routledge; 1996. [Google Scholar]
- 21.Williams D. Socioeconomic differentials in health: A review and redirection. Soc Psychol Q. 1990;53:81–99. doi: 10.2307/2786672. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Graham H. Women and smoking in the United Kingdom: The implications for health promotion. Health Prom. 1989;3:371–82. doi: 10.1093/heapro/3.4.371. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Stewart M, Gillis A, Brosky G, et al. Smoking among disadvantaged women: Causes and cessation. Can J Nurs Res. 1996;28:41–60. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Travers K. The social organization of nutritional inequities. Soc Sci Med. 1996;43:543–53. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(95)00436-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Link B, Phelan J. J Health Soc Behav. 1995. Social conditions as fundamental causes of disease. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Labonte R. Health Promotion and Empowerment: Practice Frameworks. Issues in Health Promotion Series #3. Toronto: Centre of Health Promotion, University of Toronto & ParticipACTION; 1993. [Google Scholar]
- 27.Marmot M, Bobak M, Davey Smith G. Explanations for social inequalities in health. In: Amick B, Levine S, Tarlov A, Cameron Walsh D, editors. Society and Health. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1995. pp. 172–210. [Google Scholar]
- 28.Fong D. The 1996 Alberta Survey Sampling Report. Edmonton: Population Research Laboratory Department of Sociology, University of Alberta; 1996. [Google Scholar]
- 29.National Council of Welfare. Poverty Profile. Ottawa: Supplies and Services; 1997. [Google Scholar]
- 30.Zucker G, Weiner B. Conservatism and perceptions of poverty: An attributional analysis. J Appl Soc Psychol. 1993;23:925–43. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1993.tb01014.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Bobo L. Social responsibility, individualism, and redistributive policies. Sociological Forum. 1991;6:71–91. doi: 10.1007/BF01112728. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Hasenfeld Y, Rafferty J. The determinants of public attitudes toward the welfare state. Social Forces. 1989;67:1027–48. doi: 10.2307/2579713. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Blaxter M. Whose fault is it? People’s own conceptions of the reasons for health inequalities. Soc Sci Med. 1997;44:747–56. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(96)00192-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]