Skip Navigation


Epidemiologic Reviews Advance Access first published online on May 27, 2009
This version published online on June 9, 2009

Epidemiologic Reviews, doi:10.1093/epirev/mxp002
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Web Table
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
31/1/152    most recent
mxp002v2
mxp002v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Beckfield, J.
Right arrow Articles by Krieger, N.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Beckfield, J.
Right arrow Articles by Krieger, N.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Epidemiologic Reviews © The Author 2009. Published by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org.

Article

Epi + demos + cracy: Linking Political Systems and Priorities to the Magnitude of Health Inequities—Evidence, Gaps, and a Research Agenda

Jason Beckfield and Nancy Krieger

Correspondence to Dr. Nancy Krieger, Department of Society, Human Development, and Health, Harvard School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Avenue, Kresge Building, 7th Floor, Boston, MA 02115 (e-mail: nkrieger{at}hsph.harvard.edu).

accepted for publication April 8, 2009.

A new focus within both social epidemiology and political sociology investigates how political systems and priorities shape health inequities. To advance—and better integrate—research on political determinants of health inequities, the authors conducted a systematic search of the ISI Web of Knowledge and PubMed databases and identified 45 studies, commencing in 1992, that explicitly and empirically tested, in relation to an a priori political hypothesis, for either 1) changes in the magnitude of health inequities or 2) significant cross-national differences in the magnitude of health inequities. Overall, 84% of the studies focused on the global North, and all clustered around 4 political factors: 1) the transition to a capitalist economy; 2) neoliberal restructuring; 3) welfare states; and 4) political incorporation of subordinated racial/ethnic, indigenous, and gender groups. The evidence suggested that the first 2 factors probably increase health inequities, the third is inconsistently related, and the fourth helps reduce them. In this review, the authors critically summarize these studies’ findings, consider methodological limitations, and propose a research agenda—with careful attention to spatiotemporal scale, level, time frame (e.g., life course, historical generation), choice of health outcomes, inclusion of polities, and specification of political mechanisms—to address the enormous gaps in knowledge that were identified.

democracy • epidemiology • health status • health status disparities • politics • public health • social class • socioeconomic factors


Editor's note: References 171–298 are cited in the Web Table, which is posted on the Epidemiologic Reviews Web site (http://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/).

The logo on the first page has been corrected.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Epidemiol RevHome page
S. A. James
Epidemiologic Research on Health Disparities: Some Thoughts on History and Current Developments
Epidemiol. Rev., November 1, 2009; 31(1): 1 - 6.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.